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

[merl]

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?

What are you proposing the troops be allowed to to that they cannot do now? Multiple people have said change the ROE, take the gloves off. This sounds like a fluff sound bite to me, what should the troops be allowed to do that they cannot now do?

As a civilian ROE means "when can troops shoot?" Is there more to it than that?

edit:
I see Stoner added "Let's just try with the flow of Intel and allowing agencies to act on Intel." Thank you.
Since we already do use intel heavily, is the change here lowering the confirmation standards so we don't have to know for sure the intel is accurate?

[Ronin13]

I'll chime in, having actually been a part of this war and seen it first hand...
There are some things everyone needs to understand first and foremost before anything else can be discussed.
1. Who is the enemy? What motivates him? At what end will he cease hostilities? These three questions are vital to understanding the enemy, and in turn, choosing a course of action to take in regards to the enemy. Make no mistake, Jihadists are the enemy. Who are these jihadists? Many will claim that the majority of the Muslim world is peaceful and has no qualms with the West. This may be true, but even if it's 51% that may be a majority, but the other 49% is a shit load of people to be up against. They're motivated by some twisted belief that their mission in life is to introduce a world wide calphate. Anything that is not Islam must submit or die. That's it. They will stop fighting when there is no one left to fight. Let me say that again THEY WILL STOP FIGHTING WHEN THERE IS NO ONE LEFT TO FIGHT. They do not want compromise, they do not want a deal, they want one thing, everyone is a Muslim or a subject of their Muslim rule. That's right sports fans, no more bacon, no more libations with your friends, no more women working or driving, and your wife/sister/daughter must be covered and has no say in politics. You will pray 5 times a day, you will live your life according to the Koran, and you will submit the will of almighty Allah. That's what they want, and they will take nothing else.
2. Israel. This needs to be mentioned because it helps to understand them further. The case with Israel. They have offered peace dozens of times, every time the Palestinians have swatted their hand away. When will people realize that when it comes to the Jews and other Non-Muslims there will be no peace? Simply because Israel exists is enough to make any non-moderate Muslim's blood boil. Once the Jewish state is gone do you think they'll stop? Hardly. Watch India go, then Eastern Europe, then Asia, then Western Europe, then us. If left unchecked they will achieve their goal of world domination. Sounds cartoon, but that's exactly what they want, to dominate the world.
3. How do we win? The rules in this war are simple- the most committed wins. So far we are on track to lose, and badly. Merl asked What can we do that we're not allowed to do now? I wish it were that simple. There are two ways to fight this war, especially in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We can do the soft way (hearts and minds), or we can do the more effective Spartan/Machiavellian way (bullets into hearts and minds). What I mean is: we are currently trying to look like the good guys, trying to help people, building roads, painting schools, erecting churches (er Mosques) and generally pandering to the nation we're occupying. One school of thought (I didn't come up with this, I'm only sharing it as an alternative) states that the kids gloves need to come off; that we need to play by their rules if we're ever going to win. This can be achieved very simply. If you're an enemy, you die. If you aid the enemy, you die. No longer will we pander to their rules, their ideas, their methodology. They execute their prisoners by beheading them, we send them to Cuba? No more, we put their heads on poles outside of collaborating villages. Scare them, show them no mercy, no quarter. Many think this methodology will only create more enemies, I can't say for sure, but I will say that the current tactic we're using doesn't seem to be working. We need to look at the root cause- why was Afghanistan so peaceful back in the 1970's and then became violent for the last 40+ years? Russia really screwed that up. And when a vacuum is created, the most powerful will fill it. When that more powerful force filling the void is hell bent on evil, we're in trouble. This is why we nation build.

[68Charger]

Give them a new profit (not the money kind) that changes their ideology.

How do you do that? that's the tough nut to crack.

[crays]

What are you proposing the troops be allowed to to that they cannot do now? Multiple people have said change the ROE, take the gloves off. This sounds like a fluff sound bite to me, what should the troops be allowed to do that they cannot now do?

As a civilian ROE means "when can troops shoot?" Is there more to it than that?

edit:
I see Stoner added "Let's just try with the flow of Intel and allowing agencies to act on Intel." Thank you.
Since we already do use intel heavily, is the change here lowering the confirmation standards so we don't have to know for sure the intel is accurate?

Now, merl, if I had a specific and concise answer to that, I'd be making a lot more money. Sorry if you consider my statement of opinion a little to general.

But since you have previously stated the following, what good would a detailed answer do anyway?

I think the actual threat is extremely overrated, if they managed to get one Boston a year does that really matter?

I'm of the opinion it does not hurt the country, certainly not any more than war is (in an economic sense).

There are many members here who are more highly trained, educated and experienced, concerning those specifics, to which I will defer, and several have offered up more specific opinions on change.

[Zundfolge]

Give them a new profit (not the money kind) that changes their ideology.

How do you do that? that's the tough nut to crack.

There have been many people that have said that Islam needs something akin to a "Protestant Reformation" movement. The sad truth is that Wahabism and what we call "radical" Islam IS that reformation. Read the Koran ... Islam is rotten at its core.

Raymond Ibrahim wrote a great piece on this very subject.

[Mick-Boy]

Dude.. Learn how to use paragraphs. Please.

I'll chime in, having actually been a part of this war and seen it first hand...
There are some things everyone needs to understand first and foremost before anything else can be discussed.
1. Who is the enemy? What motivates him? At what end will he cease hostilities? These three questions are vital to understanding the enemy, and in turn, choosing a course of action to take in regards to the enemy. Make no mistake, Jihadists are the enemy. Who are these jihadists? Many will claim that the majority of the Muslim world is peaceful and has no qualms with the West. This may be true, but even if it's 51% that may be a majority, but the other 49% is a shit load of people to be up against. They're motivated by some twisted belief that their mission in life is to introduce a world wide calphate. Anything that is not Islam must submit or die. That's it. They will stop fighting when there is no one left to fight. Let me say that again THEY WILL STOP FIGHTING WHEN THERE IS NO ONE LEFT TO FIGHT. They do not want compromise, they do not want a deal, they want one thing, everyone is a Muslim or a subject of their Muslim rule. That's right sports fans, no more bacon, no more libations with your friends, no more women working or driving, and your wife/sister/daughter must be covered and has no say in politics. You will pray 5 times a day, you will live your life according to the Koran, and you will submit the will of almighty Allah. That's what they want, and they will take nothing else.
2. Israel. This needs to be mentioned because it helps to understand them further. The case with Israel. They have offered peace dozens of times, every time the Palestinians have swatted their hand away. When will people realize that when it comes to the Jews and other Non-Muslims there will be no peace? Simply because Israel exists is enough to make any non-moderate Muslim's blood boil. Once the Jewish state is gone do you think they'll stop? Hardly. Watch India go, then Eastern Europe, then Asia, then Western Europe, then us. If left unchecked they will achieve their goal of world domination. Sounds cartoon, but that's exactly what they want, to dominate the world.
3. How do we win? The rules in this war are simple- the most committed wins. So far we are on track to lose, and badly. Merl asked What can we do that we're not allowed to do now? I wish it were that simple. There are two ways to fight this war, especially in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We can do the soft way (hearts and minds), or we can do the more effective Spartan/Machiavellian way (bullets into hearts and minds). What I mean is: we are currently trying to look like the good guys, trying to help people, building roads, painting schools, erecting churches (er Mosques) and generally pandering to the nation we're occupying. One school of thought (I didn't come up with this, I'm only sharing it as an alternative) states that the kids gloves need to come off; that we need to play by their rules if we're ever going to win. This can be achieved very simply. If you're an enemy, you die. If you aid the enemy, you die. No longer will we pander to their rules, their ideas, their methodology. They execute their prisoners by beheading them, we send them to Cuba? No more, we put their heads on poles outside of collaborating villages. Scare them, show them no mercy, no quarter. Many think this methodology will only create more enemies, I can't say for sure, but I will say that the current tactic we're using doesn't seem to be working. We need to look at the root cause- why was Afghanistan so peaceful back in the 1970's and then became violent for the last 40+ years? Russia really screwed that up. And when a vacuum is created, the most powerful will fill it. When that more powerful force filling the void is hell bent on evil, we're in trouble. This is why we nation build.

1. How do you differentiate between jihadists and the rest of the Muslim world? Is someone's beliefs or threats enough to make them the enemy or do we need action?

2. History has proven that Israel can peacefully coexist with Muslim nations. Israel and Egypt have been at peace since 1979 and Israel and Jordan since 1994. I laid out the three big roadblocks to an Israel/Palestine in the thread about that very topic from a couple of years ago (cliff-notes: Jerusalem, Settlements in the West Bank, Right or return for Palestinian refugees in surrounding countries). There hasn't been a serious peace offer made that would be remotely acceptable to both sides.

3. Apply just a tiny bit of historical knowledge and you can see that the fist won't break a place like Afghanistan. What could we do that the Russians didn't do in the ten years they fought here? The Taliban couldn't gain full control. Should we apply the same tactics that they used unsuccessfully? How long do we keep putting heads on stakes?

[merl]

But since you have previously stated the following, what good would a detailed answer do anyway?

It is possible, likely even, that there are some very stupid regulations out there regarding what troops can do. We have members that have seen this first hand, maybe there is something they can point to. The answer is unlikely to convince me that this can be won through invasions but that does not mean we cannot clear out some plaque.

As for the threat being overrated, fighting the GWOT like a traditional war is costing a couple hundred soldiers a year and a truckload of cash. Attacks inside the US have cost alot less than that in both lives and money and I strongly doubt troops overseas have done much to stop attacks here.*

* There may be a reduction in that those that want to kill Americans find it is easier to blow up some soldiers than sneak inside the US. I hope we're not mainly there as bait.

[Singlestack]

I agree with everyone else that our current trajectory is to lose completely. This is obvious. My older cousin is a systems engineer recently retired as a DOD weapons/intelligence top secret contractor, I know that he knows a LOT, but is unable to speak about most of it. I asked him if he thought the US would be hit by WMDs from terrorists at some point. His answer was quick and simple: 100% guaranteed. When I asked him why, here was his response:

- Although the US has good-excellent intelligence capabilities, and know about most terrorist attacks before they happened (e.g. FBI and Tsarnaev brothers +specific warnings from Russia, complete knowledge of the 911 hijackers in the US with overstayed visas and attending jetliner pilot school among other things, etc) we WILL be hit because:

- Our port and border security are poor and the bad guys know how to easily circumvent both
- Political correctness is being enforced on gov agencies and the mil (one example - no profiling)
- Even though DHS was supposedly* created to improve information sharing between the various LE agencies, that isn't happening much better than before
- There has been a severe cutback on humint over the past years, and improved satellites and elint have not replaced all the benefits of humint
- One downside of pulling the troops out of Iraq and downsizing in Afghanistan is dulling the mil blade. Couple this with less training due to DOD cutbacks and it becomes noticeable
- The radical muslim population in the US is growing. Not just Dearborn MI, but in every major city now. The reports of some calling for Sharia law in the US are more frequent
- Increasingly, the radical muslims view the US as corrupt and weak. They are emboldened to attempt new attacks on US interests and on US soil
- If the radicals do indeed form a new Caliphate or muslim superstate, they will have the control over strategic oil and resources to have the financial ability to export their terrorism globally

* My cousin thinks DHS was created to give the president greater direct control over the intelligence infrastructure, and not to share information

I'm thinking the US will not have the resolve to sustain a winning effort against radical islam until there have been multiple successful WMD attacks on US soil. I remember after 911, everyone - even the dem libs in congress, were unified for several weeks in calling for a strong response. However, after a few weeks the dems stopped that and started attacking Bush relentlessly - and haven't let up to this day. It will take something *really significant* for the US to sustain an effort with broad support - and I'm not totally convinced the US overall has the resolve to sustain such an effort anyway.

[thvigil11]

I agree with everyone else that our current trajectory is to lose completely. This is obvious. My older cousin is a systems engineer recently retired as a DOD weapons/intelligence top secret contractor, I know that he knows a LOT, but is unable to speak about most of it. I asked him if he thought the US would be hit by WMDs from terrorists at some point. His answer was quick and simple: 100% guaranteed. When I asked him why, here was his response:

- Although the US has good-excellent intelligence capabilities, and know about most terrorist attacks before they happened (e.g. FBI and Tsarnaev brothers +specific warnings from Russia, complete knowledge of the 911 hijackers in the US with overstayed visas and attending jetliner pilot school among other things, etc) we WILL be hit because:

- Our port and border security are poor and the bad guys know how to easily circumvent both
- Political correctness is being enforced on gov agencies and the mil (one example - no profiling)
- Even though DHS was supposedly* created to improve information sharing between the various LE agencies, that isn't happening much better than before
- There has been a severe cutback on humint over the past years, and improved satellites and elint have not replaced all the benefits of humint
- One downside of pulling the troops out of Iraq and downsizing in Afghanistan is dulling the mil blade. Couple this with less training due to DOD cutbacks and it becomes noticeable
- The radical muslim population in the US is growing. Not just Dearborn MI, but in every major city now. The reports of some calling for Sharia law in the US are more frequent
- Increasingly, the radical muslims view the US as corrupt and weak. They are emboldened to attempt new attacks on US interests and on US soil
- If the radicals do indeed form a new Caliphate or muslim superstate, they will have the control over strategic oil and resources to have the financial ability to export their terrorism globally

* My cousin thinks DHS was created to give the president greater direct control over the intelligence infrastructure, and not to share information

I'm thinking the US will not have the resolve to sustain a winning effort against radical islam until there have been multiple successful WMD attacks on US soil. I remember after 911, everyone - even the dem libs in congress, were unified for several weeks in calling for a strong response. However, after a few weeks the dems stopped that and started attacking Bush relentlessly - and haven't let up to this day. It will take something *really significant* for the US to sustain an effort with broad support - and I'm not totally convinced the US overall has the resolve to sustain such an effort anyway.

+1 Creating DHS was just rearranging deck chairs. So far its easier to kill Americans that are overseas, but pull all our troops back and the focus will come to the mainland.

[crays]

It is possible, likely even, that there are some very stupid regulations out there regarding what troops can do. We have members that have seen this first hand, maybe there is something they can point to. The answer is unlikely to convince me that this can be won through invasions but that does not mean we cannot clear out some plaque.

As for the threat being overrated, fighting the GWOT like a traditional war is costing a couple hundred soldiers a year and a truckload of cash. Attacks inside the US have cost alot less than that in both lives and money and I strongly doubt troops overseas have done much to stop attacks here.*

* There may be a reduction in that those that want to kill Americans find it is easier to blow up some soldiers than sneak inside the US. I hope we're not mainly there as bait.

Although I do not agree that the threat is overstated, I do agree that traditional warfare is not the probable answer. I feel that it puts our troops at a disadvantage.

Considering your asterisk, I also don't feel that the "dollars and deaths" comparisons are completely valid.
Yes, wars are infinitely expensive, but to compare innocent civilian lives lost in a terror attack, on their home soil, to trained personnel who put themselves in the fray knowingly and willingly, is not apples to apples.
We definitely need to revise some tactics, but as I stated earlier, I don't know/have the answer to that.


Sent via Mobile Work Avoidance Device