I am a problem solver by nature. In my mind each problem has a solution, it just requires a set structure of fact-finding, testing of all possible scenarios and then statistically analyzing the best and most appropriate set of actions to solve the problem. No problem.
Unless of course you are talking about how to deal with the issue of terrorism, a relatively new form of warfare that ignores all normal rules of engagement and levels of diplomacy.
The way I see it, the root of the problem with our current "Islamofacist terrorists" is that the only way to resolve their selfish need for bloodshed is one of three things: converting to Islam, complete and utter destruction of Western society, or the complete and utter destruction of Islamic Supremist Ideology.
It would appear evident that the first two options aren't really options at all, since clearly Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheista, Agnostics, Scientologists (is that even a religion?) Wiccans, Satan Worshippers (well they might go for it) and any other religious group I may have left off AREN'T going to convert to Islam by force. And clearly we can't think that complete and utter destruction of Western society as we know it is an option, because well, that would be suicide and last I checked, that's AGAINST my religion. That leaves us one option: "destroying" the mindset of our enemies.
How do we achieve this?
Some think that diplomacy is the best option, so let us explore this. We have tried reasonable measures of diplomacy with the Palestinians, as has Israel, and while this has created times of tenable peace, the end result is the same: certain Muslim Arabs resent the presence of what they see as inferior, interfering Westerners into their archaic system of oppression.
Essentially the rigid adherence to a false sense of superiority and deep-seated hatred for never being "the powerhouse" of the world eventually creeps in and pollutes their collective brains. No doubt there are Muslims who are moderate, reasonable and wanting of peace. But sadly, the threads of resentment spread like a metastasizing cancer slowly infecting all corners of their community. Like the Irish and the IRA, or the Italians and the Mafia, or WASPS and the KKK, not everyone in the community is a card-carrying member, committed to acts of violence and intolerance, but it's likely a formidable amount secretly root on their "activist neighbors" out of resentment and religious/ethnic exceptionalism.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaman
Do you have a technique of sifting the canker from the wheat? How do you propose to apply force on a 'culture' without destroying all that is good in it?
2 - Dawn
Well, I imagine that if enough force is applied that those who wish to live a peaceful existence, they will turn on those who don't.
I didn't say it was a popular or a kind solution, but I don't wish for my children to be incinerated, do you?
3 - Aaman
I have to say this, having lived through years of Islamic terrorism fomented by Pakistan for one - it never pays to play with snakes, as the West (and India) did. We are all culpable in the creation of these monsters.
I am not convinced brute force will make the slightest difference - not with oil dependence as well in the mix.
And unless all the world's powers - Russia, France, the US, India, China - agree not to play proxy wars, and clamp down on arms, money flow, and political puppeteering, not much is going to change one way or another.
Islam must address it's own problems, or die trying - I see all these conflicts,IMHO, as the last gasps of a dying ideology.
4 - Dawn
Yes, I understand what you are saying Aaman, and that makes a lot of sense, especially from the perspective of someone who knows from first hand experience. My main issue is their penchant for creating chaos and indiscriminate murdering of innocents.
Can you imagine these terrorists with nukes?
5 - RJ
I think we've got a very small window of opportunity to end this ideology if hate and mass-murder. Because, if we don't fix the problem in the very near future, it will be too late: the loons will have nukes and once-great American cities will be uninhabitable sheets of radioactive green glass.
So. We're at war. Let's win this thing ASAP, without the inane partisan bickering. Or else we are all going to die, or at least staggering through a post-apocalyptic wasteland of pain and disease.
6 - RJ
"ideology if hate"
"if" should be "of" ... :-/
7 - John Bambenek
Ideology of hate?
For a second I thought you were talking about the Democractic Party platform.
8 - Anthony G
For years this country has sit back and watch these dictators oppress there own people. It is about time we did something about it. I nominate Bush for the nobel prize.
Sure there is problems in Iraq. This is because anytime a foreign power occupies another country you will have problems. But wait until the Iraqi army is strong enough to take care of itsself and we leave. Iraq will then and finally become a prosperous country and that will make you liberals made, because you guys like to see Bush fail no matter what the prise.
9 - Shark
Sorry, I read the essay, but missed the "solution".
Brute force? Applied... How? When? Where? To whom?
Force won't work. Never has, never will. Force only creates more terrorists. Some 'police' and 'intelligence' activities can be relatively effective in prevention, but in the big picture, terrorists aren't ever "defeated" -- they're rendered obsolete by historic (long-term) changes in social, political, geographic, and cultural realms.
One can verify this with a few glances at history.
** "...That leaves the complete and utter destruction of their mindset through force and breaking down their false sense of superiority so that we may build them up again and teach them..."
Or we could wish upon a star or wave a wand over the world and.... POOF! -- they're gone!
** I wonder if Guantanamo can be expanded to accomodate 1.5 billion people?
10 - Dawn
I thought I gave two excellent examples of peoples who had similar mindsets to that of the current brand of facists, Germany and Japan.
Didn't force work to break them of their desire to control the world through their own brand of fanatical ideolism? Aren't they now allies of the U.S. and postive examples of self-governing tolerant countries?
Also, I take issue with your belief that force doesn't work, because the only thing we know that TRULY doesn't work is diplomacy without the backing of brute force if they don't comply.
Would you suggest we pretend the terrorist aren't trying to blow us off the face of the planet.
Instead of assuming that everyone but you, Shark, is wrong, imagine instead what the world would be like when the terrorist explode a nuke in this country, because that day is coming if we don't act NOW.
Maybe you don't have kids or care about the future, but I sure as hell do.
11 - Marty Thau
Good article, Dawn, although Shark might have made a good point when he wrote that terrorists are ultimately rendered obsolete by historic changes (long term) in society, etc. Otherwise, how's little Alexander doing?
12 - Dawn
I agree that terrorists in time will be rendered obsolete, but does that mean we don't have the obligation to act and prevent more innocent deaths?
What sticks in my craw the most, is the left of center's notion that applying military force is not the right course, as though doing nothing is.
So Shark, since I took the time to ask myself (and some knowledgeable people whom I respect) some important questions about what should be done, then analyzed the possible outcomes, compared that with the actions of those who are committing these acts of terror and provided what I see as a viable, and I must point out, PROVEN solution, how about you do the same.
It's easy to say "oh that won't work" but it's much harder to come up with a solution of your own.
Give it a try.
Marty, Hey nice to hear from you! Alex and Lily are swell, and when I hold their little hands and see their sweet little faces it makes me realize that there are some things in this world worth fighting and dying for.
I would sooner fight these terrorists myself, clawing at them with my nails, kicking, biting and ripping their flesh from bone, before I would sit on the sidelines and let them murder our future.
13 - Aaman
I just got another reason to fight against fear and terror:) - but what I can't explain really is, well, let's put it this way, "don't the Russians love their children too?"
14 - deano
Hi Dawn,
Well I appreciate the sentiment behind your post, I don't think you have a good grasp on the fundamentals of terrorism and its drivers in the Middle East...or on the solutions.
Some quick points:
Let's start with your description of terrorism as "a relatively new form of warfare that ignores all normal rules of engagement and levels of diplomacy" -
First it is not new. Terrorism has a long, long, long history. The only significantly new elements in terrorism in recent years have been the advent of the media-conscious terrorist (one who design and perpetrates their crimes for the express purpose of generating media coverage and interest) and the scope and scale of the weaponry available to terrorist (i.e. WMD - chemicals, biologicals, radiological etc.).
Second, terrorism doesn't ignore normal rules of engagement and diplomacy. It is, unfortunately a regular part and parcel of politics (domestic and international). It is an utterly repellent form, but it takes that form for particular reasons.
Terrorism is asymetric warfare - unpleasant, bloody, difficult and nasty, by its nature rarely differentiating between civilian and military targets (indeed military targets are often specifically ignored in favor of 'soft' targets).
It relies on several factors:
a). a much stronger enemy that cannot be directly confronted in battle
b). a galvanizing ideology or motivation
c). a level of popular support sufficient to supply resources and hide the terrorist members
Terrorists strike at what they perceive to be the enemy's weak points, never confronting their strengths. Terrorist that confront an enemies strengths are generally ex-terrorists within a matter of minutes, they are not a "stand-and-fight" force, but a "run away and live to fight another day".
In the Middle East there are a number of forces that help to fuel terrorist activity. The three most significant factors are:
1). The long-standing Arab-Israeli conflict
2). Economic disparities - Widespread disenfranchisement, poverty (despite oil revenues etc. which are seen as enriching only a small segment of the population), a very young demographic and autocratic and unrepresentative governments.
3). Resentment of the West due to lingering problems associated with colonialism, resource control, support of autocracies, support of Israel and a long-standing sense of historic injustice...and an abiding sense of threat to their basic belief system.
I deliberately don't list Islamic fundamentalism as a primary factor here as my thinking is that its popularity within the region is highly dependent on the above factors. They fuel the fundamentalist fire. Other opinions may differ.
The idea that brute force alone could resolve the problems that fuel terrorist activity, while appealing in its simplicity, is just not doable. Unless the underlying instabilities in the region are addressed through a multi-lateral, long-term involving and evolving process, any brute force approach is just going to give birth to the next generation of terror, probably a much more sophisticated and deadly form.
You want to reduce terrorism? - here's the anti-terror 101 process:
1). use all available military, intelligence and diplomatic approachs in sync to push countries to cease supporting or encouraging terrorist activities. Use military force to target, as specifically as possible, the terrorist activities. Build up a strong HUMINT network across the region (human intelligence i.e. people on the ground) that can function within Middle eastern society and languages.
2). Direct efforts to build and accelerate the rise of a middle class across the middle east. Build opportunity, stability and economic prosperity. When you have large numbers of jobless youth, with no employment, little motivation and no allegiences - you get trouble (ask any inner-city social worker).
c). Reduce the economic disparity across the region
d). encourage enfranchisment, democracy and representative government. In a pinch, if you can't do that then encourage free markets, trade etc., anything that builds a stable, well-off core population.
e). leverage the culture and the economies - let's face it, the US can't easily reduce Iraq to a tolerable level of stability with the force they've currently applied in the short-term (long-term they can). Using the Germany / Japan examples is probably not directly or sensibly comparable. You can't remake the Middle east in your image...but you can shift it towards an environment more conducive to non-violent approaches over a long period of time.
f). ADDRESS THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT! This is probably the number one factor behind resentment of the west - the perception that America supports Israel and is dedicated to screwing over the Arabs. I'm not saying the perception is correct or justified, but it is there and the Arab-Israeli conflict remains a canker in any general effort to reduce regional tensions or combatting terrorism.
So the general formula is to lower the "water" within which the terrorist swim - hit their recruitment, the appeal of their ideology, their ability to function and move freely, (and nail them to the wall directly through selective application of force) while building the opportunities, stability and economies of the Middle East.
Bear in mind, this is NOT a quick fix. Quick fixes do not exist. This will take decades of work and even then you will only reduce the terrorist threat significantly, you won't eliminate it totally. The reality is that you can't, not completely.
I recognize that I've generalized and simplified a great deal in this response, so please take it with a grain of salt and an appreciation for the fact that it is a very quick sketch and overview of a highly complex and difficult problem.
Diplomacy, economics and military action have to go hand-in-hand. A Big Stick is not enough.
15 - Nancy
First off, congrats, Aaman, on your new 'reason'! Girl or boy? (I surmise that's the general nature of it?) :)
How do "we" keep the terrorists from destroying our efforts to build up economies, etc.? Isn't that part of what the US is supposed to be doing in Iraq? After all, we've been pouring $$$ into rat holes trying to rebuild infrastructures, cities, & get the place back on its feet, set up their own government (which means setting up their own bureaucracy, lucky them) which entails lots of civilian & government jobs, set up their own police & military - but whatever we do, the terrorists destroy it. If it were me were an average Iraqi, I'd be pretty pissed off by now at these jihadists, enough to start blowing them up myself, or at the least helping the US to grab or destroy them. Summer in Iraq is no laughing matter without electricity for A/C, or water supplies. I should think common sense would dictate to these people that the sooner the 'insurgents' are put down totally - which requires withdrawal of public support - the sooner things get on to a normal status & the US Imperialist troops leave. But obviously this isn't happening; since they are (Bush & Cheney's protestations to the contrary) not going away or in their 'last throes', they obviously have a great deal of public support. Are these people in Iraq stupid, or what? I doubt it, but why does the obvious not occur to them? Guess none of them have ever read "The Mouse That Roared"?
16 - Shark
Dawn,
WHAT DEANO SAID.
(That was spot-on and deserves its own "Entry" on Blogcritics! Great word, Deano!)
PS: Also, Dawn, ("...clawing at them with my nails, kicking, biting and ripping their flesh from bone...")
--Declaring how tough you might be against an invisible enemy is not any sort of a solution. Apparently, it's a great stress release for ya, but it isn't helpful beyond that.
Experience shows that the first chance for any American (and/or Brit or other citizen) to get a glimpse of a terrorist will be their photo on TV after they've blown themselves up.
17 - Shark
Oh, did I mention TIGHTENING our BORDERS and Immigration policies?
That's two biggies right there!
18 - Dave Nalle
The idea of terrorism being rendered obsolete makes a lot of sense in the context of historical terrorism. In past eras most terrorists have been genuine freedom fighters, fighting for oppressed minorities and desperate causes. They've used terror because it was the only weapon at their disposal when striking back against invaders or oppressive governments. When these terrorists die they are heroic martyrs and when they win they become founding fathers. They win either by making it too costly for invaders to remain, or by overthrowing oppressors, or by forcing governmental change which makes them obsolete.
This is the hsitorical tradition of terrorism and this is why some on the left are inclined to be sympathetic to terrorists, because they assume that if you're the underdog and have to resort to terrorism, you must be the good guys. They see any terrorist as a modern Rob Roy or Sam Adams or Zapata.
What they don't understand is that the terrorists of today are not necessarily representing a repressed minority. They don't understand the use of terror as an institutionalized tool of oppression. There are historical examples. The Nazis carried out a war of terror against Britain and terrorized subject populations in ways very much like those used by modern Islamic terrorists.
Al Qaeda doesn't represent some poor, oppressed minority which can be made obsolete by improving conditions or which will bring freedom to their corner of the world if they win. They are funded by a ruling elite and use terror as a tool of an expansionist foreign policy which wants to bring the rule of that elite to neighboring countries and desrupt and neutralize the countries which oppose their goals of empire creation.
A suicide bomber is cheaper than a Nazi buzz bomb, but is basically the same concept. He's a weapon designed to kill people, but even more, to terrorize them into submission. These terrorists aren't trying to free their own people, they're trying to soften up key targets for eventual conquest. That makes them fundamentally different from even groups like the IRA.
Giving in to these terrorists is exactly like Chamberlain capitulating to Hitler and essentially giving him the go-ahead to invade Poland and France. Appeasment works when you're in the wrong and the terrorists are actually the good guys. When you're right and the terrorists are just a tool of a conquering enemy appeasment merely makes your job more desperate and more difficult when you finally realize you have to fight back or die or be conquered yourself.
Dave
19 - Eric Olsen
interesting timing of the new Pew study of Muslim attitudes
20 - Deano
Hi Dave,
Regarding your comments on Al Qaeda's membership,"Al Qaeda doesn't represent some poor, oppressed minority which can be made obsolete by improving conditions or which will bring freedom to their corner of the world if they win"
I think you are missing the point - Al Qaeda can find a ready recruitment ground within these societies partially because they are politically autocratic, oppressive and limited in their economic and social choices. It easy to find suicide bombers among the disenfranchised. You want to destroy Al Qaeda, you can't do it strictly by shooting them, you need to start addressing the reasons behind their joining Al Quaeda in the first place.
One major reason the madrassas (Islamic schools) are excellent recruiting centers is because generally they operate as a closed loop - they are training people on religon and an ideological application of that religon, not on management techniques, engineering, computer programming or even plumbing repair, that offer economic opportunity...
Build economic opportunities, build legitmate arenas for political action (i.e. elections), build a middle class and create opportunity. Instead of poor, ignorant, ideologically driven jihadists, you eventually get 20-something working stiffs, married with kids, trying to better their lives.
Are you still going to get well-educated fanatics? - hell, yes we have them here, education doesn't always equate to moderation. What you can do is reduce the level of societal tolerance for their existance, reduce the acceptability of their actions, take away the environment within which they are able to act with impunity.
Just killing this generation of terrorists without looking at or dealing with the underlying factors is a short-term solution at best.
21 - Dave Nalle
The thing is, Deano, that Al Qaeda is attacking countries which have middle classes - like Iraq. They are recruiting their pawns from the really poor countries like Yemen and Sudan, but their ultimate target is not the liberation of those countries and their people - keeping them poor is to their advantage - their target is the destruction of the countries in the area which have secular middle classes.
Dave
22 - Deano
Dave,
Yes they are going after the middle classes. This is actually fairly classic terrorist doctrine (not specific to either the Middle east or Islam) - economic and social disruption to force governmental crackdowns, which in turn spur resentment of the government, forment political instability...its a cascading effect. If the government doesn't crack down, they look weak and helpless, if they do, they look oppressive.
You fight it in multiple ways - in the short-tern you use military assets and intelligence to limit and destroy the terrorists directly. In the long-term you use diplomacy, economic pressure, propaganda etc. to limit and control their resources (i.e. choke off the money and the recruits). As places like the Sudan and Yeman develop opportunities and other outlets, a lot of the would-be recruits will taper off.
Note that I don't think this will be necessarily easy to do - it requires a committment of a significant nature, if you are serious about it.
From a cold-hearted geo-political viewpoint it is probably easier to keep putting out brushfires and suffering the occasional "event" (and casualties).
23 - Dawn
Take my word for it Shark, I am not just tough against abstract and intangible targets, I will fucking kill anyone who comes near my children with my bare fucking hands.
Keep that in mind.
24 - Shark
Dear Dawn,
Did I ever tell you that I think Eric Olsen is lucid, smart, articulate, cool-headed, fair-minded, and reasonable?
Well I do, and he is.
Opposites attract, eh!
heh.
xoxo,
S
25 - Shark
And once again, my compliments to Deano for his thesis above.
Great stuff.