Police vs. military action--which catches more terrorists?

[DemMother]

The rignt-wing keep whining that Kerry wants to go after terrorists using "police" action, claiming it's a failed policy (and, of course, tying it to Clinton).

It seems to me that most of the terrorists who've been caught have been as the result of "police actions," at least the way I define it.

I think it's a weak and stupid argument against Kerry, and one that won't go anywhere. Just wondering if it's dead wrong too.

[htuttle]

1. Another factor to consider

Which approach CREATES more terrorists?

[RobertSeattle]

2. It's a "macho" argument

Obviously fighting terrorisms involves lots of things - police actions, military, intel, smart construction techniques, a helpful populace, etc.

It a classic "you must do X or you are weak on Y" argument. RW'ers don't have the mental furniture to handle a complex issue like this.

[4dsc]

3. Casualty count

I think I read where 68 American's died from Al qaeda attacks during the Clinton era and so far dubya's numbers are over 3000?? Plus nearly 600 American soldiers??

[Cat Atomic]

4. Military action *creates* terrorists faster than it removes them.

I think it's best to treat terrorism as law enforcement issue. You have to maintain good working relationships with foreign governments to be effective.

But it's just as important to look at the causes of terrorism. Some of these movements grow from political conflicts that might well be solved diplomatically.

[WoodrowFan]

5. Military, BUT!

That's not the only factor. You also have to consider long term costs especially from collaterial damage, is it catching effective terrorists (i.e. would it catch Atta and his ilk, or just some pathetic wannabes stuck in Afghanistan), etc, etc. How does military action effect resources, does it take AWAY from other anti-terrorism efforts, etc.

I know, considering too many factors make Freepers' brains hurt, but policy makers need to see "the whole board" as they say on West Wing.


Strange how countries like Britain, France and Spain that have been dealing with terrorism for years chose police action as the most effective, and how the FBI seems to think police action works well against domestic US terrorism...

[htuttle]

6. Military action against 'terrorists' raises them to the level of a State..

Police action against 'terrorists' treats them as though they are criminals.

Which do you suppose is better?

[Bandit]

7. Well when are we gunna launch the military against the Anthrax mailer?

Terrorism is done (by definition) by civilians. There is no military force to deal with. It is absurd to launch a military strike against a bunch of school children who use terror as their only weapon. It is indeed a police action and any who think different probably think we can win a war on terror by military force.:shrug: Vietnam was referred to as a police action and we were engaged with the third largest army at the time. The NVA was over two million strong in 1969.