TERRORISM, WIN, LOSE OR DRAW? (No Poll)

Good vs evil.
Good will win in the end.
I read it somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monky

We would have to stoop to their level to defeat them. Sadly they are human and most intelligent folks do believe all life has value. If we adopted their tactics and beliefs through technology alone we could end it quickly. Wipe them out by the hundreds with out caring about excess casualty. Known terrorist is hidden in a bldg with innocents but still protected by those sympathetic... Level it with zero fucks given. We would win... Sadly we don't believe in religious genocide

---

That's right. A lot of non-fanatics would have to die. But, we have the (non-nuclear) capability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Let's see...moved to Algeria when I was about 7, LIVED (not visited) there for 3 years (just after their war for independence against the French...a very exciting time to be in Algiers)

---

I lived in the Philippines from the age of seven to 14 (Marshal law declared the day after I landed), I would not even remotely try to convince someone that I knew Squat about the Marcos regime when I was ten but alas, I may have been a slow learner after only three years in-country - somehow I don't think childhood exposure counts for much other than exotic food experience.

You obviously know all, I'm bowing out of this as the rest can no doubt benefit from your extensive wisdom. Carry on sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monky

It is not a war. A war is fought against an enemy. The enemy here is a belief and uneducated fanatics.

---

I'd have to disagree with that after a little thought. The enemy here is a group of people with a certain religious belief and who act a certain way based on that belief. It's not the standard enemy wearing a uniform and fighting for a particular country but it's still an enemy in the form of a group of people with vastly different beliefs/morals/values than ours. I do think it's a war against that group of people regardless of how difficult they are to identify. Or at least it sure looks like a war and people are sure dying like it's a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatidua

I lived in the Philippines from the age of seven to 14 (Marshal law declared the day after I landed), I would not even remotely try to convince someone that I knew Squat about the Marcos regime when I was ten but alas, I may have been a slow learner after only three years in-country - somehow I don't think childhood exposure counts for much other than exotic food experience.

You obviously know all, I'm bowing out of this as the rest can no doubt benefit from your extensive wisdom. Carry on sport.

---

You're the one who stated you knew my life history of living or visiting Muslim countries...sport. Bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl

Anyone care to be specific on what they would change on the ROE?

---

Our troops are constrained by ROE, and the enemy addressed in this thread clearly is not. Isn't that the crux of the issue here?

The enemy could already be in this country. How would ROE apply?

The enemy has been in this country for a long time. There's a lot of RoE and paper BS that needs to be changed. Let's just try with the flow of Intel and allowing agencies to act on Intel.

SEE EYE V EYE EL Please gentleman.

A couple of things;

As a general rule, you can't fight an ideology with force. It's been tried for thousands of years and there are very few examples of success.

Terrorism is a tactic. The military defines it (to the best of my memory) as "The unlawful use or threat of use of violence intended to intimidate governments or societies". You can't win a war against a tactic.

There's a parable/joke/illustrative story that's told in Afghanistan.
Two men are talking. "You remember that man that insulted my grandfather's honor 50 years ago?" asks the first. "Yes." replies the second man. "I killed him today" declares the first man. "What was your hurry?" asks the second.

These people think differently than we do. They operate on different timelines. This isn't something you can discount. On a national level, For Americans, the US/UK meddling in internal Iranian politics and putting the Shah back in power in '53 is old news and has no bearing on current events/thought processes. For some Iranians it might have happened yesterday.

All this to say, what we lack is a clearly defined enemy and an understanding of how to fight them. Are we at war with the Taliban? Are we at war with Islam? Are we at war with a specific sect of Islam? Are we at war with everyone who wishes us harm? Are we at war at all? Are soldiers with weapons the best way to fight all our enemies?

Some people who wish us harm don't have the capability. Is someone with intent but not means a threat right now?

Until we know who/what we're supposed to be fighting we can't chose a strategy to be successful.