Rand Corp: To destroy Al Qaeda, we must end the war on terror

[baldguy]

"A new Rand Corporation report comprehensively surveys the ways that terrorist groups have been disbanded in the past: "Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended." Instead, historic wars on terror have been won with policing and settlements. Rand's conclusion? To defeat Al Qaeda, we need to end the war on terror.

A recent RAND research effort sheds light on this issue by investigating how terrorist groups have ended in the past. By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory."

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/29/to-destroy-al-qaeda.html

[CJCRANE]

1. Bushco would never destroy the

goose that lays the golden eggs.

Where would they be without Al-Qaeda? A lot poorer and less powerful.

[mwb970]

2. They neglected the profit factor.

The RAND report seems to assume that bush's "War On Terror" has something to do with fighting terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a smokescreen for the same corporate-profit support that Republicans always favor. Everything else is slogans and lies.

[yellerpup]

3. K&R. n/t

[agentS]

4. Take it seriously

This is a pretty incredible proposal. To defeat the enemy, we have to stop fighting; that is the basis of the report.
Let's face the facts here- after almost 8 years in Afghanistan, the Taliban still control most of the country (like they did before) and Bin Ladin and company are still out there planning the next range of attacks. Al-Qaeda has lost significant influence throughout the Arab world because of their attacks on Muslims.

* Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.
* Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.

In order words, beating them the way we beat the other terrorists groups of the '80s.
Light footprint (damn you, Rumsfeld) doesn't work with invasions, but certainly it does with counter-terrorism.

[Hydra]

5. Of course they are talking sense

But there's a problem with this- Bin Laden has been dead for a LONG time.

All of these little brush fires are being set by our own Gov't as an excuse for their war policies. The policies are driving the facts, as usual.

[tex-wyo-dem]

6. John Kerry was right!

Of course, we all knew that, and it really doesn't take a (probably) multi-million dollar study by the Rand Corp. undoubtedly paid with more of our treasury dollars to figure this out. The fact that terrorism is fought, not through military action, but primarily through police, intelligence and political action seems like a no brainer to me.

John Kerry will probably accept Bush’s apology

By: Steve Benen on Tuesday, July 29th, 2008 at 5:20 PM - PDT

Back in 2004, Bush told a Florida audience, “ Kerry said, and I quote, ‘The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.’ (Audience boos.) I disagree…. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America — and war is what they got. (Audience applauds.)”

Bush, pleased with himself and the reaction, repeated the attack again and again and again. The point was obvious — paint an image in which Bush battles terrorists with the most powerful military in the world, while Kerry fights al Qaeda with cops and lawyers.

<snip>

Reuters added:

Based on an analysis of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, the report concluded that a transition to the political process is the most common way such groups end. But the process, found in 43 percent cases examined, is unlikely with al-Qaida, which has a broad, sweeping agenda, the report said.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end, seen in about 40 percent of the cases, is through police and intelligence services apprehending or killing key leaders, Jones said. Police are particularly effective because their permanent presence in cities helps them gather information, he said.

By contrast, the report said, military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases.

<snip>

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/29/john-kerry-will-probably-accept-bushs-apology/

[yurbud]

7. first, Democratic leaders have to be honest about the scope of the problem instead of "me-tooing"

Bush propaganda about an Islamo-fascist caliphate stretching from New Jersey to North Korea.

[katty]

8. yes, it has to happen on a local level