"the military response to terrorism is not a solution"

[welshTerrier2]

Does terrorism exist or is it just an excuse for bush and the neo-cons to go marauding around the world? my answer to that question is: both are true ...

We should not confuse bush's disasterous response to terrorism with the existence of terrorism ... there really are groups of people who hate the US and would like nothing more than to strike "back" at us ... the question becomes, what should our response be to terrorism? clearly, the military response, at least as implemented by bush and company, has been catastrophic not just to the US but to the entire world ... instead of working for global peace (does anyone still talk about such objectives?), bush has made a much more polarized world and badly weakened the US in the process ... our military is weaker; our Treasury is weaker; our global prestige is weaker; our alliances our weaker; and our national spirit is weaker ... all this weakness as many countries in the world, especially China and India, are growing much stronger ... the damage bush has caused knows no boundaries ...

So, if massive military intrusion is not a viable response to terrorism, what is? Democrats have spoken about using more military in Afghanistan ... They talk about how diverting troops from Afghanistan and moving them to Iraq greatly weakened our efforts to capture Bin Laden and stabilize the new Afghani government ... Do you agree with this? Perhaps it is true that "we had Bin Laden and let him get away" ... But do you believe we could have "built" a stable Afghanistan had we left a massive troop presence in place there? I just don't believe we can "build stable governments" by becoming occupiers ...

The response to terrorism, and surely I don't have all the answers, has to start with a very deep and honest examination of what motivates terrorists to act ... Why do they want to attack the US or US interests? Some seem to assert that even beginning such an introspective process is by default "blaming the US" ... I disagree ... We need to start with the simple maxim: "know thy enemy" ... This, btw, is not to say that the US is NOT at fault ...

The process for determining a response to terrorism should be:
         1. Why do they hate us?
         2. Are their reasons legitimate?
         3. Are their tactics legitimate?
         4. How should we respond?

Without great elaboration here, I believe the root causes of terrorism directed at the US are, to a very significant degree, reactions to US conduct in the world ... Most of this conduct can be traced back to corporate interests ... Corporations in certain industries, with the muscle of the US government supporting them, have sought to exploit citizens of foreign countries by laying claim to their resources (e.g. oil) or by propping up oppressive governments in their countries by selling them arms and "repressive" technologies (e.g. weapons) ... In the case of Middle Eastern terrorism, the strong bond between the US and Israel has also been a source of major problems ... the solution to that alliance is not to weaken the alliance but rather to use all the leverage possible to help bring about a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... absent that, our alliance with Israel becomes a magnet for more terrorism ... so, in response to the first two questions about determining a response to terrorism, my view is that they hate us because of our conduct in the world and that their reasons are legitimate ...

Now, are their tactics legitimate? This is a very difficult question ... in fact, it is a question that I probably can't or won't really answer ... I cannot under any circumstances condone attacks against civilians ... so on that basis alone, I could readily condemn the tactics of groups like Al Queda ... While I can't condone their tactics, I can certainly understand them ... it is certainly not reasonable to expect groups fighting against the US to use conventional warfare ... it is nonsense to expect them to send bombers to take out our military installations or send a fleet of submarines to destroy our navy ... so, if not conventional combat, what else is left to them besides terrorism? my view is that by our rapacious conduct, we have essentially left them no choice ... i don't condone the choice but i also understand that they really have no alternative ... kind of a Catch 22, eh? if they do it, it's wrong, but there's nothing else they can do ... simplistic statements that "terrorism is evil" just don't "cover the waterfront" ...

And finally, how should we respond? Is there anyone you believe has a good answer to how we should respond? We're just getting into another "primary season" ... In the preceding paragraphs, I gave my beliefs of what is causing terrorism in the world ... I don't hear any candidates talking about US conduct as a cause ... I see that as a very, very serious problem ... I am deeply worried that they will never "blame the US" because that would be seen as un-American or unpatriotic and would be politically damaging to their campaigns ... and they might be right about the politics ... the problem is, that means our system of politics precludes telling the American people the truth and it precludes those seeking high office from leading us in the right direction ... perhaps someone not running for office, much in the manner of Martin Luther King or perhaps even Al Gore as an environment crusader, needs to "make the message safe for candidates" by standing on a tall soapbox and delivering the message ... or perhaps it might come from someone in the Congress whose seat is highly secure ... folks, we cannot continue our empire without the most dire consequences and someone better start delivering that message and rallying an opposition ... we are running out of time ...

The response to terrorism, as stated in the following article, cannot be military ... We are mired in tactical discussions about how to "protect our ports" or how to move troops from Iraq back to Afghanistan or whether we need a draft ... all of these things are TACTICS ... perhaps they are good tactics; perhaps not ... one thing's for sure though, they will not protect us if we don't radically change our conduct in the world ... how can we make others understand that and how can we get our government to move the country in the right direction?

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0120-03.htm

US President George W. Bush is a terrible leader who has done tremendous damage worldwide, Bangladeshi Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus has said in an interview.

Bush has done 'tremendous damage', says Nobel peace prize winner Muhammad Yunus
"Bush is a terrible leader, not only for the United States but for the entire world," Yunus, a 66-year-old micro-credit pioneer and "banker to the poor", told El Mundo newspaper Saturday.

"He has led the world on a dangerous path and it will take a lot of time to take it back on the right one," he was quoted as saying.

"Bush has caused tremendous damage. The cold war was over and with it all this wasted energy and mistrust of so many years. We were speaking about the dividends of peace," he added.

"And then the war on terror started and the vengeance and again all this money was invested in war technology." <skip>

"What I'm saying is that the military response to terrorism is not a solution."

[welshTerrier2]

1. a great big THANK YOU to the mysterious recommender

of this lonely thread ...

and a shameless KICK as well ...

[Jai4WKC08]

2. I'll give you my short answer

And try to come back later for more discussion.

As you may or may not know, I'm a retired military officer and I would agree that "a military response to terrorism is NOT a solution."

But I do believe there is, or should be, a military component.

I am convinced terrorism is real, altho I would admit that it can take more than one form and very few nations in the world are completely guilt-free when it comes to using terror (their own or other people's) to get what they want. Still, as you correctly note, there are groups of people who hate the US, and wish to do us harm, who have done us harm in the past, and will so again if we don't stop them first. That these groups exist has absolutely nothing to do with how Bush has used them and the fear they generate for his own purposes.

In my opinion, we have to look at solutions in a short-, intermediate, and long-term basis.

In the short term after 9/11, it made sense to use military force. Against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and PERHAPS (not knowing all the details) with strikes in Yemen, the Philippines, and more recently in Somalia. We may and probably will have to do more of it at some point. Military force serves 1) to disrupt those groups and kill their members, the latter being the only way to stop the most radicalized; 2) to force them into hiding thus making their plans more difficult to execute; and 3) to discourage nations from openly harboring the groups, providing them resources, making room for their training camps, and so forth.

But (and hopefully this is obvious) if we only use the military, we will NEVER solve the problem. So in that sense, a military response cannot be a solution. It just won't work. More importantly, the use of military force in the near-term can be counterproductive in the intermediate and/or long term. That's what the Bush and the Republicans (and sadly too many Democrats) just don't get.

We have to use every resource at our disposal, and the greatest of those is our alliances, our treaties for cooperation, and international law. The groups who hate us are spread all around the world. Even if we had as large a military as we could possibly muster, we couldn't invade all the countries where terrorist cells reside. Nor would we want to. We HAVE to depend on the governments of those countries to help us. Most of them want to -- they don't want the terrorists there any more than we do. There's no reason we can't work with those nations and institutions to make better laws, to do more policing, to share more intelligence, to invest more in the counter-terrorism apparatus. This will take some time, so I consider it more of an intermediate solution. But we also have to remember that, when we throw our weight around too much, whether militarily or in any other way, we only discourage them from helping more. In the case of democratically elected governments, we sometimes make it impossible for them to help at all.

And of course, if there is an ultimate solution, it has to lie in not growing more terrorists. Moral considerations aside, we cannot and will not ever kill all of them, and they can find replacements much faster than we can take them out. So we have to address the root causes. Indiscriminate use of military forces is certainly NOT the way to keep from creating a new generation of people who hate us.

I agree with you that many of the root causes of terrorism lie in bad US policy. But I also think there are other economic and social factors that we can't necessarily change. A young man who has few prospects of getting a good job, marrying and raising a family is far more likely to join a terrorist organization. So is one who feels his best contribution to his family or peer group might be in blowing himself up for their honor. And so is one whose only education is by jihadist mullahs, and whose only knowledge of the US is what they tell him. And then there's the cultural clash that is inevitable as more of our values, attitudes, and yes, commercial products seep into Islamic societies. I am convinced that one reason they hate us so much is because we threaten to change the role that women play in their society. Nothing seems to incite anger, hatred, distrust... every bad emotion you can name... than issues that revolve around sex.

These latter problems cannot be solved overnight, and the solutions can't really be imposed from the outside. We in the US have to do our best to encourage better policy making, and we (by which I mean good intentioned people on both sides) need to do the best we can to keep from blowing ourselves up in the meantime.

Oh, and while we're at it, we'd better figure out a way to stop a global climate catastrophe or the population pressures will cause more conflict and terror than we can probably even imagine.

Hmmm... that wasn't as short as I intended....

[welshTerrier2]

9. a really great response, Jai4WKC08 ... thanks!!

short response, eh? you better run out and put another quarter in the meter ...

i'll slip right into your framework of short, medium and longer-term approaches ... and i especially appreciated your point that actions we might take in the short-term could have consequences for the middle and longer terms ...

i am not opposed to using our military when it is necessary to do so ... my belief, however, is that even where a legitimate use of the military might be present, to fight terrorists in Afghanistan as you pointed out, i believe what might at times be a legitimate reason often masks the hidden objective of the policy ... in Afghanistan, if we had a government that represented the values of most Americans, I could have supported the use of military force to attack Al Qaeda and those who provided them with support ... the problem, though, is that "getting Al Qaeda" was not the real objective of the bush government ... the real objective was the installation of permanent military bases for the sole purpose of guarding the new oil pipeline ... with that as the "real" objective, what then was the appropriate position to take on the use of force in Aghanistan ... one might argue that the adverstised objective justified the policy ... i would NOT disagree ... but the real objective did not justify the use of the American military ... do we support a policy based on the reasons given or do we reject the policy based on the actual objectives? using the American military for private commercical gain, as i'm sure you'll agree, is not a legitimate use of our military and it is incredibly unfair to those who serve ....

even with the timeframed perspective you presented, i think all phases, i.e. short, medium and long, ultimately suffer without the necessary "gestalt" ... it makes no sense to me to engage in overly tactical discussions without the necessary perspective of the bigger picture ... sure, there is certainly an urgency to some of the short-term tactical concerns ... if there is truly an imminent threat, we must react tactically and not wait for some broader perspective ... no argument there ... but one can also make a case that, even in the short-term, perhaps making the necessary changes in our own foreign policy and global conduct could strengthen our security ... as you pointed out, perhaps our alliances would benefit from a bit of introspection and the resultant policy changes it might bring ... perhaps, instead of Al Qaeda recruitment posters with pictures of Abu Ghraib, it's time for a public apology from the US for bush's violations of the Geneva Convention ... perhaps, instead of fomenting violence on the Iraqi street as Big Oil prepares to steal Iraqi oil for the next thirty years, we might actually support an arrangement to help the Iraqi economy recover instead of catering to Big Oil's shareholders ... perhaps instead of sending a terrible signal by building a bloated, ostentatious embassy in Baghdad, we could spend that money helping Iraqis rebuild their utility infrastructure ...

even changes in American conduct are not going to "fix everything" overnight ... it will take generations to repair the damage we have done ... my "little message" is that our leaders, including many who are or will run for president, refuse to address these issues ... i see our foreign policy as imperialistic ... the truth is, it doesn't matter so much what i see but that is clearly the view on the Arab street ... i keep raising this issue here and elsewhere in the hope that it will encourage a national discussion of the issue ... as i said in the OP, i am deeply concerned that our political institutions are stacked against those who tell the truth when America could walk away with a black eye ... perhaps it will take a darkhorse candidate throwing a hail mary pass to put the issue in the public square ... the mainstream candidates seemingly are too fearful to address the issue ...

finally, i wanted to address your interesting comments about culture and the role of women and so forth ... i might quickly return to comments about foreign US military bases and the "spill over" of American culture into nearby areas ... perhaps that would be one way to greatly limit the impact of the issues you raise ... but, even absent "US occupation" of foreign lands (invited or otherwise), it's not clear to me that the rejection of American cultural values would become a cause celebre for terrorism ... i say that with the caveat that it would not cause terrorism unless it was somehow imposed into the local culture ... imposed ... so, if we show sexy movies on HBO or have nude beaches or play hip hop music on our radio stations, i don't expect that would cause people in other countries to want to come here to kill innocent civilians ... it's when we cross the line and impose our culture like a virus into their culture that the reaction you've observed becomes likely ... we need to respect the rights of other cultures to set their own standards ... we cannot become planetary liberators now matter how much we believe our way of life or our values are the right ones ... worse yet, such "noble causes", like bringing democracy to Iraq, are little more than a smokescreen for our real policy ...

very impressive post, Jai3WKC08! thanks so much for taking the time to respond ...

[Jai4WKC08]

10. I do tend to ramble on sometimes....

We've had some of this conversation before. I don't know exactly what Bush motivations are for the way he's used the military. I believe he (and by "he" I mean him, his cronies, and the people who put him in office) have multiple motivations. Oil undoubtedly lies behind much of it. Profits for corporations as well. Domestic politics were a big factor, imo -- a nice short little "cake walk" war would give us a war president likely to be reelected, and divert attention from his failures. Hell, I even believe what Sy Hersch said about how the neocons (not Bush himself, but many of his henchmen) are "true-believers" who really believed that recreating the Middle East could change the world. But in the end, it really doesn't matter so much what all the reasons were and which had priority over the others. It was still a stupid and wrong thing to do, as you say, unfair to those who serve, not to mention those at the pointy end of the stick. And to the rest of us who are paying for it, both in taxes and in what we could have gotten with the money wasted.

I don't know that I agree with you that US policy is inherently imperialistic. Not in the way I sense that you mean it. Perhaps I'm a little darwinistic here. I do think nations are like species in the wild. They compete for resources, all seeking to grow and expand... in the case of nations, by power, influence, wealth. Some are more successful than others. Some die out. Some over-grow their environment and collapse on themselves (as h. sapiens may yet do as a species). I don't think we in the US should feel bad for being successful, but I do think we must be cognizant of the impact we have on others, and attempt to ameliorate the consequences that are inevitable.

I also believe the ideal competition, more advantageous to everyone, is when we can make it a win-win game instead of win-lose, and I think that's possible most of the time, or at least more often than we have historically allowed it to be. But I don't think I'm completely naive -- I realize there are evil people in the world... and in the US... and in our govt... who don't give a damn about anyone as long as they get theirs. I don't think the US has any kind of monopoly on evil, but our power, influence and wealth means that when we do something wrong, the impact is exponentially more far-reaching.

But I feel this competitive dynamic has always been there and I suspect it always will be, and quite frankly, I'd rather the US be a winner than a loser. That doesn't excuse us if we abuse other peoples. And in the end, we will pay when we do. No true empire has ever lasted very long; the subjugated people overcome. There's some sort of equilibrium that must eventually be restored.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that as long as the world likes our "stuff" (whether it's democracy, or internet access, or coca-cola), they'll keep buying it (not necessarily with money) and we'll keep selling it and it will give us an advantage over them and that's not automatically a bad thing. Our obligation is not to force it on them. Not only because it's wrong, but because in the long run, it doesn't work.

About the culture clash stuff... I do believe that's at the root of much of the hatred of the West in general, and the US in particular. Like I said, nothing gets people riled up like sex. I've seen churches and synagogues weather every doctrinal storm, and then split with much rancor when the issue of female pastors/rabbis comes up, or even the issue of who sits where. I've seen military people accept great cultural change without a word, then go ballistic when you talk about women in combat (their male domain) or gays anywhere. I remember the way the Saudis reacted when US service women rolled our sleeves up, or walked around the outside of buildings. And there was NO attempt to force any change at all on the Saudis; if anything, we bent over backwards to accommodate their culture. But Saudi women saw and made their own decisions. So I agree that hip-hop music or dirty movies may not be enough to go to war over, but having their own wives demand the car keys is. Even worse is the fear that their sons and daughters are being influenced by the western culture they seem to crave.

You can't pin it all on US bases or overseas corporations, altho both of course makes it worse. Western, especially American, culture is everywhere because non-Western people see it in the movies or on the internet and they want it. Especially the young people. I once saw a photo of a Palestinian kid with a rifle wearing a Spiderman t-shirt. No one made him put that shirt on, and I sincerely doubt it was an American who sold it to his parents. And no matter what we do, it's only gonna get worse. Before it gets better, than is.

But hey, I'm essentially a one-worlder. I believe that, if we can avoid a totally dystopian future (whether thanks to climate or nuclear war or an asteroid or God knows what), technology and communications will eventually bring us all together. What can I say... I was a Trekkie as a kid, and basically still am. I think it's a matter of social evolution -- one more step in an inevitable progression from family to clan to tribe to city to nation to regional alliance and so forth. That's why I can't get too worked up about trade agreements and exporting jobs, altho I think we need to be smarter about how we can keep from hurting people on both ends of the bargain or wrecking the environment in the process.

[blm]

3. I agree and even RW pundits have now seen the light.

The Triumph of Unrealism
By George F. Will
Tuesday, August 15, 2006; A13

Five weeks have passed since the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers provoked Israel to launch its most unsatisfactory military operation in 58 years. What problem has been solved, or even ameliorated?

Hezbollah, often using World War II-vintage rockets, has demonstrated the inadequacy of Israel's policy of unilateral disengagement -- from Lebanon, Gaza, much of the West Bank -- behind a fence. Hezbollah has willingly suffered (temporary) military diminution in exchange for enormous political enlargement. Hitherto Hezbollah in Lebanon was a "state within a state." Henceforth, the Lebanese state may be an appendage of Hezbollah, as the collapsing Palestinian Authority is an appendage of the terrorist organization Hamas. Hezbollah is an army that, having frustrated the regional superpower, suddenly embodies, as no Arab state ever has, Arab valor vindicated in combat with Israel.

Only twice in the United Nations' six decades has it authorized the use of substantial force -- in 1950 regarding Korea and in 1990 regarding Kuwait. It still has not authorized force in Lebanon. What is being called a "cease-fire" resolution calls for Israel to stop all "offensive" operations. Israel, however, reasonably says that its entire effort is defensive. The resolution calls for Hezbollah to stop "all attacks." The United Nations, however, has twice resolved that Hezbollah should be disarmed, yet has not willed the means to that end. Regarding force now, the U.N. merely "expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements" of the U.N. force that for 28 years has been loitering without serious intent in south Lebanon.

The "new Middle East," the "birth pangs" of which we supposedly are witnessing, reflects the region's oldest tradition, the tribalism that preceded nations. The faux and disintegrating nation of Iraq, from which the middle class, the hope of stability, is fleeing, has experienced in these five weeks many more violent deaths than have occurred in Lebanon and Israel. U.S. Gen. George Casey says 60 percent of Iraqis recently killed are victims of Shiite death squads. Some are associated with the Shiite-controlled Interior Ministry, which resembles a terrorist organization.

The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

>>>>>
more to read
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401163.html

[welshTerrier2]

4. don't Kerry's quoted remarks refer only to TACTICS?

the article stated: "John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.""

that's exactly the problem I see with the national dialog on terrorism ... i'm not going to argue, as i stated in the OP, whether the TACTICS presented are good TACTICS or bad TACTICS ... if i'm asked whether there should be a major law enforcement component to battling existing terrorist organisations, i would certainly not disagree ... but this misses the point completely ...

absent from the national dialog is any meaningful discourse on what is motivating terrorists to act and to what degree, if any, are their reasons (not their TACTICS) legitimate objections to US conduct ... has Kerry spoken to that specific point? if so, i have NOT heard him ... please let me know ...

[blm]

5. Kerry studied world cultures and religions for many years for the express purpose of learning

how they effect their region and its governance.

He worked through many difficult years to uncover the global terror networks that were being supported by official governments and official institutions. That was what BCCI was all about.

Nothing is ever going to happen without the books on the last 40 years opened up to reporters, historians, and the public. That can only happen with a cooperative oval office.

The big picture you want is the very reason that I support anti-corruption and open government Democrats, welsh. Because it is crystal clear to me that nothing will EVER change without an executive branch that trusts the American people as CITIZENS and respects them with the TRUTH.

Without the real documents in hand, no lawmaker will get past the corporate media the way we need them to, imo.

[welshTerrier2]

6. it always amazes me ...

how people on DU can look at the same issues in so many different ways ... i'm often amused by this ... i appreciate your perspective, BLM; i also disagree with it ...

here's my take ... first, i couldn't possibly be more supportive of "opening the books" ... i deeply believe Americans would be more than shocked if they ever learned even half of the truth ...

but, it seems to me, your argument goes further than that ... you're implicitly making a case not just that nothing will ever change until the books are opened, but also that there's no point in even trying ... i believe we need to start making the case now based on the currently available evidence ... for example, we don't need to open the books to point out the outrageous, record profits the oil industry has enjoyed since we invaded Iraq ... it's public record ... and we don't need to open the books to talk about the billions Lockheed has made since the war began ... and we don't need to open the books to raise the question about "why do they hate us?" ... and we don't need to open the books to clearly see that Al Qaeda recruitments are way up since the war began ... i certainly would never question that more evidence from a more open government would greatly help us make our case to the American people ... open the books and open their eyes to the truth!

still, the job of "leaders" is to educate the public ... who will stand up now to say that one of the causes of terrorism, not a justification but a cause, is an abusive, imperialistic American foreign policy ... they need to say that to the American people and I believe they just won't do it because there will initially be political consequences ... a real hero would stand up and start making the case ...

you also raised the issue of the corporate media ... it's a HUGE problem to be sure ... but i don't accept that as a basis for not speaking out on our corporate-driven foreign policy ... debates will be carried on C-Span ... that's one of many opportunities to speak ... and, of course, there are numerous campaign venues ... there are the candidates' own websites ... they send out billions and billions of emails to Democrats and people in their districts ... that's another opportunity to say what needs to be said ... so, yes, the way too centralized media are an enormous obstacle but leaders need to do what needs to be done to lead and to teach ... there is just no excuse for silence ...

[blm]

8. But, I don't disagree with you. I just am fully aware of what happened to EVERY person

lawmaker and reporter who tried. They were demoted, fired, smeared and scorned - some even suicided.

And every time that Kerry DID bring up BCCI or his other investigative work, no Dem pundits or spokespeople would pick up that ball and run with it. Like it or not, Kerry wasn't and ISN'T a one man show. That only comes with an oval-shaped office.

[FrenchieCat]

7. This was Clark's thought on this very issue, 3 days after 9/11.....

When the country's frenzy of fear was at its highest level! If anyone would show themselves to have potential as a warmonger, this would have been the time. Instead, Clark is rational, deliberate and calming...and as always calls for a variety of tools to be utilized to result in achieving the true goal any challenge might present.

A Long, Tough Job
By Wesley K. Clark
Friday, September 14, 2001; Page A37
The Washington Post

snip
For the United States, the weapons of this war should be information, law enforcement and, on rare occasions, active military forces. The coalition that will form around the United States and its NATO allies should agree on its intent but not trumpet its plans. No vast military deployments should be anticipated. But urgent measures should be taken behind the scenes, because the populations and economic structures of Western nations will be at risk.

And the American public will have to grasp and appreciate a new approach to warfare. Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex, interlocking network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings and facilities but the people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other terrorist attacks.
snip
Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies around the globe. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given shape and identity.

In some cases, astute police work will win the day, here and abroad. In other cases, international intelligence collaboration may be necessary. Special military forces may be called on to operate in states that are uncooperative or simply unable to control their own territory. In exceptional cases, targets will be developed that may be handled by conventional military strikes.
But in the main, this will be arduous, detailed and often covert work to track, detain or otherwise engage and "take down" our adversaries, rolling them up cell by cell and headquarters by headquarters.

Some will call for full disclosure and near-legal standards of evidence before acting. Others will arm a hair trigger, seeking to use the most readily available information, even if scant. But we must not pose legality and expediency as opposite extremes. To be expedient, we must act within the bounds of international law and consistent with consensus among the allied coalition that is emerging. And maintaining this consensus will be one of the prime challenges we face.
snip
We must strengthen our protective measures at airports, at utilities and other public service facilities such as communications networks, and prepare necessary public health and disease control capabilities for the possibility of nuclear and biological events. And if we are successful in preventing further attacks, another challenge will be to maintain our resolve. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=122187

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Legitimacy should have nothing to do with response, I think.

If someone is committing or threatening to commit murder in the name of a good cause, that should not encourage you to act in that good cause. You may act on it anyhow, *because* it's agood cause, but that shouldn't be a part of your calculations in deciding on a response.

Power sharing in Northern Ireland has happened despite, not because of, the IRA, because it was the right thing to do.

Doing something that terrorists want you to do is not giving in to terrorism. Doing something that terrorists want you to do that you would not have done had it not been for them is, and should be avoided where possible for the same reason that one should try and avoid paying ransoms - it encourages more of the same.

That said, sometimes giving in to a threat is the right thing to do, unpalateable as it is.

I think that the two questions one should ask about a terrorist movement, or any other movement you want to stop, are "can we stop them wanting to kill people" and "can we stop them being able to kill people". In most cases the answer to the latter is "no, not entirely". The answer to the former is often "no" too, alas.