Hey, Paul -- good afternoon.

Yeah, but there were front lines then. We knew where to push, and in what direction. Who signs the surrender papers when we win the "war" on terrorism? From the I.R.A. to the P.L.O. everytime the "legitmate" organizations move toward peace, splinter groups start the whole damn thing again.

Reducition of capacity & capability. The people caught in Canada and Florida and Cali were no where as good as UBL's boys. Hit them hard enough and the hate maynot go away but the realtime capability does. Reduce commandos to street gangs and you still have violence to be sure but then it is a police problem. This is already happening.

The problem (I see) is that this situation expects our soldiers to be policemen. (the same issue I have with just sticking the Army on the Mexican border to "solve" immigration) Fighting the North Vietnamese Army was one thing. The Viet Cong was a whole different ball game - beause they were everywhere. There was no front line.

I guarded borders in Germany. We guard borders in Korea & Kosovo. It ain't rocket science. Attrition of capability even if not personal can shrink the problem to enough for civiliization to continue the fight in police paradigm. You are right: soldiers kill people. Policemen police people. See my post above on Vietnam.

How do we trust the Iraq who tells the Marines there are weapons in such-such's house? How de we know he's telling the truth? How do we know it isn't a setup? How do we know our 'friend' just doesn't want some petty revenge on a hated neighbor? Does the CIA have their shit together enough to backup this info before our soldiers go running in? Do the Iraq police know what they're doing?

Here they found away. It works and most people hate it. Militias. The death squads in Central America were effective and pose a 'good' model. During a period of transition local forces are given control of local areas. As violence recedes it is counter balanced by rising centerilzed control. Civilian deaths happen in the beginging. Innocents are killed tradegities happen on a 'small' level followed by stability and freedoms on the otherside (to paint the argument on a kindergarden level for brevity). Mistakes happen in instances but the big current moves forward. Easy to say if your loved ones not murdered. But it does work. This model is part of the bedrock adaptation to asymetrical warfare.

Do we deploy soldiers at home to start rooting out the next Timothy McVeigh?

No. You'll never stop a lone madman in a free society. It is so impossible it shouldn't even be part of the argument. It'll never happen. However you do stop foriegn agents from infiltrating or providing material support to homegrown cells.

You can't stop a Columbine. But you can stop Iran from providing a disgruntled radical with a dirty bomb.

This is meant conversational not like I have THE answers from on high.

This could last 70 years even if done 'correctly' we  should accept that as pose our arguments.

The goal is to erradicate capabilities on a material level and reduce the ideology from mainstream to fringe. Nazis onced threatened the world. Now it's for whack jobs. It took about 8-10 years to take them out. In todays global society it will take longer.

Sound plausible?

"I don't know if you are aware of this but military planners are using the IRA scenario as a *reason* to use force and not negotiate with the terrorists."

What I said was this: "it's about effective ways to beat terrorists--and you don't do that by killing civilians"

The key word there is 'civilians'. Not 'terrorists', but 'civilians'. Terrorists are not civilians. How you get from 'we should not kill civilians' to 'we shouldn't fight terrorism' is unclear to me. Perhaps you'd like to explain?

Secondly, the British in Northern Ireland did not use anywhere near the level of force that the US army is using in Iraq. I can't remember reading any accounts of Irish wedding processions getting blown up by helicopter gunships. Can you?

"SAS killers and artillery barages made them come to the table."

P'raps so, p'raps not. But that has little--if anything--to do with the proposition that killing civilians is a good idea. I note that the British Army did not use artillery in Belfast, nor did the SAS shoot people at roadblocks in broad daylight in urban areas.

"This has been widely reported. Insurgents who are ex-Fedeyean pay people for safe houses, staging areas, and supplies. The average price for setting up a roadside IED was $200 US dollars."

Well, jolly good. And I'm sure the people who don't want to accept the money feel perfectly comfortable telling the insurgents to bugger off.

"You are only arguing from tier II development. Tier I: war makes heroes! This is great lets do it! How noble! Tier II: war is ugly, innocents are killed, people who loose loved ones hate us; It never solves anything! We shouldn't do it! Tier III: Yep it's ugly. Yep it causes problems. No its never clean; Sometimes we must do it. In 'good' wars and 'bad' wars grampy gets blown to pink goo and children are hurt. That isn't a 'policy' or 'tactics' flaw that's just saying the sky is blue."

Please, show me where I said we shouldn't go to war. Go have a look, I'll wait...

No? That's because I didn't say it. Personally, I think invading Iraq was a good decision. Saddam would have had nukes at some point (even if he didn't have them at the time) if the US hadn't invaded, and the thought of nukes in the hands of someone who had already demonstrated his willingness to use WOMD against people makes me very thoughtful.

What I do have a major problem with is what appears to me to be the bumbling foolishness of the people who organized the invasion and who are now running the war/conflict/whatever.

It is self-evident that the US army's killing of civilians is feeding the insurgency. Therefore, it seems only rational and logical to try and limit the number of civilians killed to as small an amount as possible. And from what I can see, the US army is some way away from that point. You may say that's what they're doing--but then ask yourself how many Irish weddings were blown up by helicopters. I think you'll find the number is not unadjacent to zero.

"Also scratch this theory very deep and it seems like going to a mugger's house to give him your wallet so he doesn't have to get up and go to Day Labor (at best) or get a gun and go to the trouble of robbing you (at worst)."

Hardly. The idea of, say, France and Germany going to war now is unthinkable. Why? Because their interests are so closely intertwined. And why is that? Because their economies are so closely intertwined. It was capitalism that defeated the Soviet Union; the militaries of the free world simply stopped the USSR invading us--not the same thing as defeating them.

"There is plenty of money in Saudi. Saudi hijackers were middle class, educated, and employed."

Yes, Saudi Arabia's a bit of an odd bird--but that's an effect, I think, of the fact that they can have a hugely inefficient economy and a very restrictive society and still make money hand over fist. Look at countries which have had to open up their economies to become developed--like Japan--and then ask yourself how many hotbeds of terrorism there are.

"Terror is not a military tactic."

I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage might have something to say about that. :wink:

On a more serious level: the Old Man of the Mountain used terror fairly effectively.

"They show that without a doubt Soviets were aggressive and expansionist minded. If they were not faced they would have dominated."

I don't think any rational person would doubt that--just as I don't think any rational person doubts that Islamofacism (call it what it is) needs to be faced down.

"If your not willing to risk civilian deaths you can't fight a force utilizing a populous for cover & concealment. If you don't want to fight then you must surrender. You must be like Chamberlin in 1938 and not Regan facing down the Soviets in the '80s."

This is a false dilemma.

"But I think there is such a thing as too much."

 

nathan said... "I don't know if you are aware of this but military planners are using the IRA scenario as a *reason* to use force and not negotiate with the terrorists." What I said was this: "it's about effective ways to beat terrorists--and you don't do that by killing civilians" The key word there is 'civilians'. Not 'terrorists', but 'civilians'. Terrorists are not civilians. How you get from 'we should not kill civilians' to 'we shouldn't fight terrorism' is unclear to me. Perhaps you'd like to explain? **** I went back read the post. It seemed you were framing the argument in such a manner that negotiations and not military force was the way to go and using the British vs. IRA scenario as an example of this. My point based on what you appeared to write was that this is not born out. It still reads that way to me but I'll accept that isn't what you meant. My more general point is that in NO war scenario implemented by anyone can you 'just' kill terrorists and not end up with civilians'. Our Army doesn't think you 'should' kill civilians as a matter of policy. Collateral damage is not the same as targeting civilians and I got the feeling you were just lumping the two together without nuance. If you weren't doing this we're good. "SAS killers and artillery barages made them come to the table." P'raps so, p'raps not. But that has little--if anything--to do with the proposition that killing civilians is a good idea. I note that the British Army did not use artillery in Belfast, nor did the SAS shoot people at roadblocks in broad daylight in urban areas. This jusn't isn't true. Artillery was used on the border between N and regular I. SAS deployed urban snipers and shot people through their windows while they eat breakfast. No, a battery of 105mm was never (that I know) fired in Belfast -- but war fighting weapons were used (mortars, recoiless rifles, light artillery, HE) and they damn sure shot people in broad daylight and at checkpoints. However the reason it only escalated to the level it did was because the IRA was much kinder to its population (unless they were protestant, lol) than those in Iraq. They also never used suicide bombers or VBIEDs causing soliders at checkpoints to be jumpy to *that* level. The main point of anaolgy not being the direct correlation in practical terms between Belfast and Baghdad, but rather that the British did not negoiate because collateral damage occured. The theoretical mindset is the anaolgy. "This has been widely reported. Insurgents who are ex-Fedeyean pay people for safe houses, staging areas, and supplies. The average price for setting up a roadside IED was $200 US dollars." Well, jolly good. And I'm sure the people who don't want to accept the money feel perfectly comfortable telling the insurgents to bugger off. As long as we now (unlike upstream) agree that money changes hands. You seemed to be saying that 'no this doesn't happen' now you seem to be saying 'well, sure, you're right but it doesn't mean anything.' A guy with a suitcase full of money going into a market or cafe and purchasing a platform for his guys hidden in basement nearby is an entirely different scenario (to me) than guys kicking down a door and holding a family at gunpoint. If you think that is merely symantical then our gulf of understanding is too far apart. I bow out. It is self-evident that the US army's killing of civilians is feeding the insurgency. Therefore, it seems only rational and logical to try and limit the number of civilians killed to as small an amount as possible. And from what I can see, the US army is some way away from that point. You may say that's what they're doing--but then ask yourself how many Irish weddings were blown up by helicopters. I think you'll find the number is not unadjacent to zero. The couple of paragraphs above that I mostly agree with. It seems to me that the insurgents whole-sale slaughter of killing civilians is hurting the insurgency. I agree with you that is perfectly rationale and logical to try and limit the number of civilians killed to AS SMALL AMOUNT AS POSSIBLE. Now we disagree - I think they have. First of all. That wedding story? You're treating it like agreed upon gospel. Even if it was true you are framing the argument by implication that it wasn't an accident but was stradgey. If it was an accident it was a tradegy due to the fog of war -- just like French civilians killed by US fire were tradgeities -- not a crime by design. Zarqwi blew up a wedding party in Jordan by design by way of comparison. You seem (seem) to be suggesting a moral equivilancy or even a tactical equivilancy between the two. You are taking the Belfast analogy (IMO) too literally in some cases and too loosely in others to pidegeon hole into your argument. However I admit you could say the same about myself, I just think I'm seeing the Belfast lessons more clearly VIEW IMAGE Hardly. The idea of, say, France and Germany going to war now is unthinkable. Why? Because their interests are so closely intertwined. And why is that? Because their economies are so closely intertwined. It was capitalism that defeated the Soviet Union; the militaries of the free world simply stopped the USSR invading us--not the same thing as defeating them. First I don't think this fits. I think it is the intertwining of economies that caused the rubbing together of cultures for friction that developed. I think America was heartily trying to do this by getting into every piece of pie it could get its hands on. I think it is exactly that goal (and being a nation of [sarcasrm]jew-lovers[/sarcasm] that inited global terror. They don't want your golden arches. They want to kill you for having golden arches. Also: one note with your examples. We completely dismantled Japan, Germany, (France by extension) and built them back up in our own image for that to work. If that's what you're calling for in the radical ME -- I'm on board. "Terror is not a military tactic." I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage might have something to say about that. :wink: On a more serious level: the Old Man of the Mountain used terror fairly effectively. Okay here I'm only quibbling though it may speak to a prism through which people view the war. A B52 in the skies over your city can cause a feeling of terror. The use of unconventional tactics ala the hassassins make cause a feeling terror. That does not make it "terror." A feeling of fear in and of itself is not the political doctorine of terror. Geurilla tactics - even if utilizing suicide bombers -- are not terror. Terror is using horrific and seemingly random violence against soft targets to get people 'back home' to be so disgusted they want to runaway. It influences political decisions. Extremely brutal geurilla tactics are not terror per se. Nick Berg was terror (saying: 'we're such vicious killers you should fear us, vote in a president who will leave the ME"; like how the bombings in Madrid caused the Spanish to surrender in their elections)the two soldiers tortured and killed last month was brutal guerilla tactics (saying: "you do not own this area of land - a conventional warfare goal".) It's neither here nor there - it just irks me, lol.

E & D: here's an example of what I see as the cause of most collateral damage not related to crimes or acts of terror. I'm not sure how any unit or government party could change the basic truth of this report.

Questions about marine fire on civilian vehicle PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY AM - Thursday, 10 April , 2003 08:04:26 Reporter: Geoff Thompson LINDA MOTTRAM: I spoke to Geoff by satellite phone a short time ago for some more about those events. GEOFF THOMPSON: Linda, we've just landed at a combat regiment headquarters and it was a rather interesting journey here. We were travelling in the back of a truck with a bunch of rather nervous marines, who were appointed to security for that convoy. On the way here, they were getting very nervous about civilian vehicles approaching them too quickly. One sped up quite quickly towards them. They fired a warning shot, the vehicle kept moving forward. They then opened fire, a lot of fire on that vehicle and I've just learnt, certainly killing the person in that vehicle. Another vehicle came from another direction, other vehicles were shot up across the street. Fire was directed at buildings across the street. The marines believe that they were being fired upon and in total three civilians have been killed and I understand one marine was injured in the foot. And it's thought now, talking to the commander here, that the fire that seemed to be returning was actually tracer fire from marine weapons in the opposite direction. So a circumstance of civilian, basically marines firing on civilians and firing on other marines. LINDA MOTTRAM: So confusion really, because they claimed they were being fired on but in fact they weren't. GEOFF THOMPSON: Well, they still maintain they were being fired on. I've interviewed all of the marines who were involved in the incident tonight. They're all saying that they saw green and white tracer fire and why they say that is green and white tracer fire is what comes from AK-47s which is what they say is used here, so that's likely to be enemy fire. I never saw green and white tracer fire. Michael Cox, our ABC cameraman here, never saw green and white tracer fire. Now just talking to the CO, of the place where these guys come from, he watched it from a distance. He said the only traces he saw were the same colour as the ones coming the other way. LINDA MOTTRAM: So are you suggesting that these soldiers are trying to cover up for a tragic mistake? GEOFF THOMPSON: No, I think what's happened is that they got very excited and I think that they were very anxious, they were very… basically they were trying to keep civilian vehicles away. They did warn the vehicle, they said 'back, back, back'. But you must remember, it is dark. The vehicles have got headlights coming up the back of the vehicle. They went 'back, back, back', fired a warning shot. The vehicle sort of veered, seemingly in surprise and they opened up on that vehicle. In terms of what they saw and what they believe, I think they were very excited by the experience. The green and white tracer fire, I didn't see it. They think they saw it, they're sure they saw fire coming in the other direction. I don't think they're covering it up. In fact, I think they believe that's what happened. I don't believe that is what happened and either does the commander of their unit. LINDA MOTTRAM: So, you're talking about highly trained American marines who are in a state of nervousness and excitement, who seem unable to determine what exactly is coming at them and who are even more jumpy by civilian headlights from cars in a suburb, hardly an unsurprising encounter? GEOFF THOMPSON: That's right. They have their, I mean I think their operational procedures are to keep civilian vehicles away. These vehicles were moving quickly towards the truck, they were warning them in the dark, with headlights on them. It's impossible to… there's an assumption here that civilians will know what that means, they will know what it means when a marine waves them down in the other direction. Clearly, this incident, this clearly tragic incident has proven that's not the case. LINDA MOTTRAM: Geoff Thompson, our correspondent in Baghdad, travelling with US troops in a still very unstable security situation there. Some very graphic images there from Geoff. ***** Now I'm not trying to pull something out as anecdotal evidence to prove my point, just that I think this is a fair representation of how some people look at the war. Linda was practically salivating about "highly trained" marines "covering up a mistake" when there is no 'mistake' in one case (Iraqi's do not have a Human Right allowing them to rush up on US convoys when VBIED are the weapon of choice and, in the other instance the guy who was there, Geoff, is trying to explain how confusing the fog of war was while Linda from the safety of CONUS is drooling to convict the marines.(EDIT: or my favorite Linda quote; "who seem unable to determine what exactly is coming at them and who are even more jumpy by civilian headlights from cars in a suburb, hardly an unsurprising encounter?" I mean hell, apperantly these are just murdeous idiots shooting at innocent tailgaters in a 'suburb' - what over reacting cowards, lol) That was the prism I read it through and I often see critics of the administration painting US troops from the talking point of Linda when I think they should be a little more Geoff about it.