Military force vs Terrorism

[ewagner]

Can anybody provide me with an example of when brute, military force completely stopped terrorism?

I ask this because certain historical events come to mind and I cannot name one incident where a "war" against terrorism was successful.

I recall the efforts of the French Underground in Nazi occupied France. Germany was never able to stop incidents of sabotage against either Germany facilities, infrastructure or those who willingly collaborated with the occupying Nazi forces.

I recall the efforts of the Zionists during the period of the British mandate in Palestine before the vote for partition. I recall the Zionists were quite successful in wreaking terror on the British. The King David Hotel incident comes to mind.

IRA was never stopped by direct military intervention in Ireland.


The British did a lousy job of stopping terror attacks by the rebellious Colonists in America.

Farther back, not even the Romans could totally extinguish Jewish rebellions.

Terrorism is one of the oldest tactics known to man. And it is damned near impossible to quash because it is border-less. Moreover, terrorism isn't born of a country or a state, it's born of an idea. You can't conquer an idea with armies. Ideas can only be conquered with a better idea.

That's my problem with the "war on terror". While it was most certainly true that those who perpetrated the attack on September 11 must be brought to justice, the ham-fisted full-blown military approach is not the most effective means of achieving that task. Even if military action is necessary in some cases, it is rendered useless without an equally dedicated effort to replace the ideas that spawn terrorism in the first instance.

Our foreign policy is too simplistic: You're either with us or against us Our country is powerful, true enough, but until and unless we are willing to recognize that other nations have the right to exist on their terms and we are part of a community of nations, we will be in a constant state of war and near-war.

Sorry for the rant but it seems to me that we are failing to frame the argument properly. We are failing to understand that brute force alone cannot solve the problem of terrorism. We're ignoring the lessons of history and if we continue to do so, we will pay a terrible price.

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. It's not intended to stop "terrorism" it's intended to sell more weapons

And it does a very good job of that.

[ewagner]

2. No argument with taht .....but...

I'm more interested in an administration that has a serious plan to end terrorism as opposed to profiting from it.

btw: I enjoy your posts.........

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Thanks! I wish that the voters wanted an administration with a serious

plan to end terrorism, especially one with a serious plan to cease engaging in it.

The closest thing I have seen to such is over on draftcamejo.org

I don't think that the Green Party constitutes such a threat to the bipartisan war machine that mentioning the website can be considered partisan organizing, in case any disclaimer is needed.

[rfkrocks]

3. The Romans destroyed Israel - I think they got rid of that threat

in the sack of Titus 70 ad-if you are willing to be like the Roman empire there are lots things you can do like crucify people. We put down the Indians in this country but if you don't want to commit genocide you have to use reason and discussion and that point has been lost on the evil Bush administration.

[maggrwaggr]

5. interesting point --- the American Indian --

weren't they considered "terrorists"?

Does Bushco want to do to the Islamic nations of the world what we did to the American Indians?

I don't think we have that many bullets, and certainly the smallpox-infested blankets are no more ....

[rfkrocks]

9. But then again don't we have a King george?

Bushie in a big grey wig-it kinda fits him!

[kentuck]

6. I think it could be argued that brute force would create ....

the exact opposite. By killing the terrorist, one would have to kill their families and loved ones also, because if they die for an idea which they may think is noble, the family and loved ones will not turn against the "terrorist" because they are not convinced that he is a bad person. Rather they would tend to look at him as a martyr. This would only enlarge the idea and create more terrorists to defend the idea.

I fear that is what we have done in the Middle East, especially Iraq. Perhaps it oculd have been argued credibly, even to the Arab ancestors of the 9/11 hijackers, that what they did was evil. But it would be much more difficult to convince them that what we did in invading Iraq was done to get "rid of evil". That action will undoubtedly lead to more terrorism, in my opinion.

[Pobeka]

7. The military admits it creates more terrorists.

I had to conclude that after reading about one of the incidents in a small village in Iraq a few weeks back, where the military had classified one of the villagers as a potential terrorist. Their rational for the classification? -- the U.S. had killed a few of the villager's relatives.

[BillZBubb]

8. The Mau Mau's, the British in Malaya, the Spanish in America

Those might be useful examples.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. What do you mean "completely stopped?"

Completely stopped for a time or for all time?

For a time, the French stopped the rebellion in Algeria through brutal repression.

Ultimately, terror never really stops unless all the members of a group are captured. The Baader-Meinhoff gang went away after they were captured.

[Q]

11. War on Drugs...War on Terrorism...

...Neither are meant to be won...only fought at our expense.

[bemildred]

12. Brute military force causes terrorism.

It is precisely the use of force to avoid redress of honest
grievances that leads to violent resistance. Where issues are
redressed fairly and honestly by political means, terrorism does
not come into play; except in the form of the occasional nut or
small group of nuts.

Precise use of police power may be used effectively for small
groups of terrorist nuts.

For popular resistance movements you have to provide redress of
grievances or the resistance will continue indefinitely as each
new generation comes of age. In some cases this may lead to
genocidal results, but that is actually much more difficult to
carry out than most imagine, and in most cases one finds that the
"winning" side has great advantages in several areas when that
result is seen.

The techniques and methods of peoples war are widely known now,
and as we see in Iraq, repressed peoples do not usually confront
invaders with direct military force any more, they get right to
the guerilla war. The business in Chechnya and Israel now are also
informative as to the relative lack of utility of military superiority
in achieving political ends, and I expect the current business in
Haiti to be very interesting in a cold-blooded sort of way as we
see what sort of resistance the Haitian people can mount to the
supression of their will.

The military is also a stunningly expensive way to deal with popular
resistance movements, a point that some find attractive, as DTF often
points out.

[LeahMira]

13. Lesson from Vietnam...

One lesson was that a relatively small and technologically limited nation could win a victory over a superpower.

The only way that would not happen would be if the superpower were willing to use its own weapons of mass destruction and to annihilate the country and its people entirely.

Harry Truman is reported to have pondered the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to have ordered them with a heavy heart. I can't imagine Bush hesitating for a second... unless we're talking North Korea, a nation that could hit back.