Strategy Against Al-Qaeda Faulted: Rand Corp. Report Says Effort Is Not a 'War'

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: Washington Post

The Bush administration's terrorism-fighting strategy has not significantly undermined al-Qaeda's capabilities, according to a major new study that argues the struggle against terrorism is better waged by law enforcement agencies than by armies. The study by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. also contends that the administration committed a fundamental error in portraying the conflict with al-Qaeda as a "war on terrorism." The phrase falsely suggests that there can be a battlefield solution to terrorism, and symbolically conveys warrior status on terrorists, it said....

***

The study was based in part on an analysis of more than 600 terrorist movements tracked over decades by Rand and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. Jones and Libicki sought to determine why such movements ultimately die out, and how lessons from recent history can be applied to the current struggle against al-Qaeda.

The researchers found that more than 40 percent of terrorist movements fade away when their political objectives are met -- but that this outcome occurs only when groups are secular and have narrow goals....A roughly equal number of terrorist groups die when their key leaders are arrested or killed. In the vast majority of instances, this is accomplished by local law enforcement, the study notes. "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument," said Jones, a terrorism expert and the report's lead author....

***

The authors call for a strategy that includes a greater reliance on law enforcement and intelligence agencies in disrupting the group's networks and in arresting its leaders. They say that when military forces are needed, the emphasis should be on local troops, which understand the terrain and culture and tend to have greater legitimacy. In Muslim countries in particular, there should be a "light U.S. military footprint or none at all," the report contends....

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902041.html?nav=most_emailed

[spindrifter]

1. This has been my argument for several years--

but of course we don't get the idea of "law enforcement" taking the lead. Of course, in Afghanistan training law enforcement is a major issue, as such a huge percent of the National Police were illiterate. Try taking cases to court when there is no written police report, for example.

[clspector]

2. well, effing

duh.

[frylock]

3. well no fucking shit..

this is some ground breaking stuff right here, man. :eyes:

[Demit]

4. Kerry called for a law enforcement strategy 4 years ago, and was mocked for it.

There's such a bitter irony to the last sentence in the WaPo piece:

"The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity," it said, "but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment."


This is what saner heads were trying to say all along, but were shouted down. I'd like to see the Rand Corporation do a study of THAT—why there was a concerted effort in this country to defy common sense. And did this movement achieve its desired objectives? Is the very fact of this study being published an indication that it is fading away?

[leftchick]

5. 'Focus On: Tools of terrorism used by the United States'

http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/796454.html


Wayne Pricer has yet to see "good Muslims" speak out against "Muslim terrorists," but is he a "good American" speaking out against "American terrorists?" (See: "So where are they?," July 29)

So where are we?

Like most, Pricer seems to see terrorists exclusively as "people who are against me."

First we need a definition of terrorism to level the playing field. Paraphrased from the U.S. Army definition: Terrorism is the threat or use of violence against civilians to alter the behavior of the civilians or their government.

It flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but when President Bush launched "shock and awe" in Iraq, he committed an act of terrorism.

If you’ll remember the opening salvo in Operation Iraqi Freedom, civilians, government officials and military personnel were killed with the express purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from office; ergo, terrorism.

Granted, a smattering of western political, religious and other dignitaries called it for what it was, but, for the most part, people accepted that "collateral damage" — dead innocents on their side — was necessary to achieve our goals and visions of a better world.

[lostnotforgotten]

6. Duh!

eom

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Just replying to some responses in the thread: This is a common realization here...

among us, but not elsewhere. I follow news articles pretty closely, and this is a rare one on this subject, and a welcome finding by this or any group.

Not only does it make sense, but we experienced the value and effectiveness of seeing terrorism fought with law enforcement while living a few years in another country. I wish there was more discussion in the press about the subject.