• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Rand Study: 'War on Terror' Not Working

A

Anonymous

Guest
Rand Study: 'War on Terror' Not Working

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM

WASHINGTON — The United States should shift strategy against Al-Qaeda from the current heavy reliance on military force to more effective use of police and intelligence work, a study released Tuesday concluded.

The study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that often does work for the US military, also urged the United States to drop the "war on terror" label.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, lead author of the study.

The US military has pressed in recent weeks for more troops to combat an intensifying Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, but the RAND study recommends only "a light military footprint or none at all."

The study examined how terrorist groups since 1968 have ended, and found that only seven percent were defeated militarily.

Most were neutralized either through political settlements (43 percent), or through the use of police and intelligence forces (40 percent) to disrupt and capture or kill leaders.

"Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory," the report said.

"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy," it said.

It argued that a US strategy centered primarily on the use of military force has not worked, pointing to al-Qaeda's resurgence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks.

Policing and intelligence "should be the backbone of US efforts," it said. Police and intelligence agencies were better suited for penetrating terrorist groups and tracking down terrorist leaders, it said.

"Second, military force, though not necessarily US soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al-Qaeda is involved in an insurgency," it said.

"Local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate than the United States has, and they have a better understanding of the operating environment, even if they need to develop the capacity to deal with insurgent groups over the long run," it said.

While the US military can play a critical role in building up the capacity of local forces, it should "generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the study said.

— AFP
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/war_on_terror/2008/07/30/117517.html
 

don

Well-known member
don't you just hate it when something makes sense? heck, all they needed to do was look at how the red brigades, bader-meinhof and others were defeated. the bunch that bush was fronting for couldn't find their butt with both hands.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
don't you just hate it when something makes sense? heck, all they needed to do was look at how the red brigades, bader-meinhof and others were defeated. the bunch that bush was fronting for couldn't find their butt with both hands.


What was interesting was that in all the Al Qaeda training material found- and in his speechs- bin Laden has often said that they can't (and aren't even trying to) defeat the infidels (U.S.) militarily-but they knew we couldn't either as long as our involvement recruited them new (and more) terrorists- but that they could bankrupt us...

And they got lucky and got a big enough dummy in the White House-who's connections to Big Oil/Halliburton/etal made him their puppet- who also wanted to revenge what the neocons thought was his Daddy's error---- who then decides shades of Capt. Fetterman or Col. Custer that he can take on the world-"just a few dumb Indians"-- and he rode us right down Crazy Horses Lodge Trail Ridge or Greasy Grass River--and we are going to be damn lucky to come out with our scalps....

Problem is that after he got so deep in mistakes- and his whole administration was turning into failures- he had to keep yelling "charge" as a diversion against everything else...

Yep- I'm glad to see these folks (who the military utilizes often and takes their advice highly) can see what more and more have seen now as the years go by- and they finally have the backbone to come out with it...I think as King Georges power wains in the days to come- you will see more come out with more workable plans counter to the ones we have seen...

The only thing that disappoints me is they never addressed the issue of better securing our borders and ports- or the immigrants (legal and illegal) that could easily allow unlimited terrorists into the country....But maybe they feel that falls in the broad area of "policing"...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It sounds like Gates and the pentagon are buying into most of what the Rand Company is saying...Get our butts out of being in the middle of these mess's as fast as possible- and assist those countries to take care of their own problem...Which pretty well had been the previous policy years ago- altho it didn't go far enough toward building our intelligence and policing capabilities.....

Ironically the Rands report saying that our forces on foreign soil is what allows/causes a growth in the number of these terrorist "freedom fighters"- is exactly what the Iraqi Parliament members testifiying to Congress and Maliki have been saying....

It will be interesting to see if the Presidential candidate who's only foreign policy plan so far has been Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, and 100 years of occupation troops will be willing to "change" his thinking.. :???:

Gates: Wins in Iraq, Afghanistan Don’t Mean Victory

Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:29 PM


WASHINGTON — The Pentagon's new national defense strategy calls for a shift in focus from conventional warfare to mastering the complex threat of global extremism, a published report said Thursday.

According to excerpts of the National Defense Strategy approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and published by the Washington Post, the U.S. military must prepare for a more diverse and long-lasting struggle against insurgency and terror, or "irregular" warfare.

"Iraq and Afghanistan remain the central fronts in the struggle, but we cannot lose sight of the implications of fighting a long-term, episodic, multi-front, and multi-dimensional conflict more complex and diverse than the Cold War confrontation with communism," the Post quoted the document as saying.

"Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is crucial to winning this conflict, but it alone will not bring victory."

The defense strategy calls for strategic partnerships with Russia and China, as well as a greater focus on the conditions that spark extremist movements and behavior.

"The use of force plays a role, yet military efforts to capture or kill terrorists are likely to be subordinate to measures to promote local participation in government and economic programs to spur development, as well as efforts to understand and address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies," the document said.

"For these reasons, arguably the most important military component of the struggle against violent extremists is not the fighting we do ourselves, but how well we help prepare our partners to defend and govern themselves."

The newspaper said it obtained the 23-page document, which has not been officially released, from a defense industry news service, InsideDefense.com.

— AFP


http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/gates_iraq_afghanistan/2008/07/31/117897.html
 
Top