Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

Hello. I need your help.

See, I need to know how to win a war against a military tactic known as terrorism. Terrorism is a very conterversial military tactic that has been internationally condemned. The United States has declared a war against this military tactic, and while they are no longer saying the war on terrorism in public, they have not signed a peace treaty with the military tactic yet.

I need to know how to win the war on terrorism. Obivously, you cannot destroy a military tactic entirely. So there must be a different way to win this war. Prehaps there is a way to seek for negogations with a military tactic, or find a way to discourage its use so heavily that the US can unilaterally declare victory. I don't know. I need to know though.

I am strongly supportive of the US taking North Korea off the State Sponsors List of Terrorism, for instance, as this means that North Korea is no longer sponsoring terrorism, thereby meaning the Terrorism must be losing support. I am also strongly supportive of efforts to take the Nepali Maoists off the United State List of Terrorist Organizations, because that would mean the Nepali Maoists would no longer be terrorist, and thus would mean there are less people conducting terrorism.

I am very worried of Lone Wolf Terrorism though, as Lone Wolfers do not need huge organizations to conduct terrorist activities. They can just do any old crime and then say they are doing it for a political purpose. So, if somebody shoots up a News Station, and say they are doing it to protest Conservativism, the Lone Wolf Terrorist has already won. If Lone Wolf Terrorism continues to be used, then it will be impossible to outlaw Terrorism as a military tactic.

The term terrorism has many different definitions. Since the US is waging this war against a military tactic, it is perferble to use their definitions.

According to U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

And according to 18 U.S.C. §2331

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."

So...yeah. It's rather important the United States wins this war against this unapproved political tactic, or at least draw it to a conclusion. Because, as long as the war continues, valuable resources will be drained fighting it, and these resources would be better used fighting much more conventional threats to American supermacy. Bay12Gamers, it's up to you to win the war on terrorism!

[Strife26]

First, I like to divide the overarching strategy of terrorism into a couple of groups.

We have 'Small-Cell' or home-grown terrorism (what S.C. called 'Lone Wolfers')
To a large extent, these chaps are crazies. Their major advantage is the fact that there isn't a network to get spies/informants into. They tend to be pretty unproffesional though (they've got no one to train them). If you get one skilled enough, you have to react. There aren't too many of them, thankfully.
If they're a bomber, you have to got for an investagation. Can be alleviated by making bomb making materials harder to buy (no, you may not buy a cement truck full of fertilizer). Security by important installations can help  as well (there is no way in HELL you're allowed to park that cement truck anywhere NEAR the White House)
2. If they're a shooter, you can make guns harder to get (have to be careful about the 2nd though. I'd like a strategy of promising no further restriction on what you can own, but requiring easy registration on most guns and back-ground checks when purchasing). Concealed carrying helps as well. If you try to shoot up a movie theater, but there's twenty people around who open up with M1911's, you won't do much damage. Armed security guards at target locations as well.
3. The worst type you could get are those trying exotic means. Anthrax, portable nukes, ect. You have to stop them from getting the weapon. That means tough (really tough) security at these sorts of locations. Thankfully, you can't make most of these sort of things without outside help.


The next major class would be concealed cells.
Small international rings. They can be tough to find, but simeltaneously lack a lot of resources to attack us. Attempt to penetrate with spies, cut off known funding, ect. Try to get understandings with foriegn governments to allow us to swoop and smash safe houses.
Probably the biggest threat.

Big international rings. Have areas of a country in anarchy, somewhat public.
Al-Qaeda is the big one.
Smash the areas where it is apparent where they are (Swat Valley). Then you just have well connected smaller cells. Try to inlfinifrate. If they have media operations, analyze and try to respond to them. Has the means to conduct big attacks. Terminate with EXTREME prejidice.

State terrorism. The others are NGO (non governmental organizations). These are the chaps who answer to an actual nation. Dump the nation on the terror list, get the UN to sanction their asses. If it gets bad enough, move in and smash them (we can do that to pretty much anyone, thank god for sole-superpower status).

General: KEEP THE FUCKING NUKES SECURED!!!!!!!!
Try not to piss people off (Hint: don't nation build)
Nation Guardsmen are important!
Police should be prepared for proper firefights (follow NYC's lead, give every other cop a M-4).
Remember that we can crush any terror cell with sheer military might.

That's all I can think of right now.

[Neonivek]

This definition is kinda vague.

It would be like fighting the Ocean

[Little]

This definition is kinda vague.

It would be like fighting the Ocean

I think that was the point of the OP, but Strife jumped in with his American Military Might and ruined it.

[Strife26]

Well the post was talking about terrorism from the perspective of the united states, so that is what I assumed it as being about.
Did I misread?

[chaoticag]

First of all would be educating the public that terrorism isn't just Militant Muslims, but also other organisations. I'm not exactly sure how well the public is informed, but when I went to the US in 2006 there was a guy in a gorrilla suit marching with a flag in front of a sign that said something like "invading Iraq was not enough, we should have wiped out all the terrorists."

[Servant Corps]

Strife: You aren't telling me how to WIN the war. You're basically saying that you have to respond to every possible supporter of terrorism out there and blow them up. How long can you expect the United States to conduct this sort of thing before you realize it just doesn't work in destroying terrorism as a viable military tactic, only stalemating military forces who engage in terrorism. The United States of America still has not won the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs.

So there needs to be a knockout blow, something that will say, "America won the War! No more fighting!" Your policy does not say that. It proposes that the War on Terrorism becomes an endless, perpetual war, fighting against any potential bogeyman. That's not a War, that's a Quagmire.

You didn't misread the topic though. The War on Terrorism is a US-centeric policy, so a US-centeric answer is alright. It's just not what I am looking for. Plus, I'm real worried that the United States might "accidently" fund a organization engaging in terrorism, and thereby undermine the "War on Terrorism". Terrorism is not "anything America disapproves", it is a military tactic that is condemned by most people.

[Neonivek]

I'm real worried that the United States might "accidently" fund a organization engaging in terrorism

Already happened. Multiple times in fact.

[Little]

I'm real worried that the United States might "accidently" fund a organization engaging in terrorism

Already happened. Multiple times in fact.

Coup of 1953 for one.

[Strife26]

Well then, I'm unable to sleep, so I'll try to refine my ideas.

First, we need to identify the question.

How can the United States win the War in Terror?

Terrorism is usually defined as the use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians (or non-combatants) to achieve a (generally) political goal.

The simple answer to the question is that you can't. Terrorism is a strategy of war. It would be like winning the war against flanking maneuvers. There are ways you could end terrorism forever. However, none of them are good ideas (amongst them we have mind control the world, nuke everyone, end all disagreements between people, ect ect ect). Therefore, because an absolute end to terrorism doesn't really work, we have to try to minimize it.

Let's compare terrorism to mustard gas for a moment. Mustard gas sucks. However, it was a pretty effective weapon during WWI. What happened to it? First of all, it was reciprocated. You gas us, we gas you. 2nd, countermeasures were developed (gas mask). Third, the international community as a whole banned it. Finally, it became largely obsolete.

First we have reciprocation. The Mutual Assured Destruction effect. If a weapon (terrorism is more of a strategy, but we'll call it a weapon) is pretty dangerous and horrifying, you may not want it used against your own troops. So you only have the weapon to deter the other guy. This only really works when you have two nations both willing to terrorize each other. Sadly, the civilized world is NOT willing to reciprocate, and most of the NGO terrorist types wouldn't care if we did (they don't have a civilian infrastructure to terrorized). We can hardly Tomahawk Tehran, can we? What would CNN do.

2nd, we have adaption. Basically, the technology no longer becomes the best way to wage war. Doesn't apply to terrorism. It remains dammedably effective.

3rd, condemnation. Somewhat similar to reciprocation. The whole world has spoken out against the weapon. You risk bringing the whole world's wrath down on your head if you use it. Where are we bringing it down on though? Almost the entire world doesn't like terrorism, but they have no real infrastructure to destroy.

4th, obsolete. See 2.

For as bad as terrorism is, it isn't like mustard gas. All the outcry of the world can't stop it easily, there isn't an immobile target. And, for the little guys, it remains their best (only) chance of fighting against any medium power. Nothing Al Qaeda could field as a traditional army could stand against the US (or most organized countries, tanks win wars, no?).

If you want to prevent terrorism, you have to go look up at the non-possible solutions. Option one is the kill them all approach. You want to blow yourself up to kill a few Americans? Great, go ahead. We'll then find your entire extended family, interrogate them roughly, then execute them. Rinse, wash, repeat. Before long, people are going to squeal on their relatives. Cohesion breaks down, people offer up their organization in return for their families (there will always be those who value their families or person more than their country or cause). Problem is, America can hardly do that. It'd be horrible, and we lack the political will to do it (interestingly enough, that plan would get into genocide territory, which is in the condemned stage earlier, so we'd get the rest of the world attacking us).

Mind control is right out. So that leaves ending conflict. Fun task right? We've got a two fold task then. 1st, remove the reason why most of these chaps are becoming terrorists. 2nd kill those who are still terrorists. There's a long list of interesting problems we get to with #1. A big motivator right now is religion. I'm sorry to offend, but it's Muslim terrorists that are the current issue. Once again, we have the unethical solutions (nuke everyone?). However, there will always be those within a religion that are radicals. But we exactly have Rangers rappel into a Mosque and blast the radical Imam. This leaves with a end program that will have to be focused on alleviating economic conditions, and preaching (heh) moderate Islam where ever possible. Simultaneously, there will be areas where this won't work (the die hards) you can either wait for them to die out by themselves (like communists, it clearly doesn't work, and we have four or so hard core communist countries left) or we have to take action against then. Taking action though (shooting the crazy Imam) creates additional resentment and martyrs, starting the cycle over.

So, from my perspective the path of peace would be best. Make the Middle East less of a hell hole (give people paying jobs that aren't anti-America). Then wait for everyone to get the idea that life is good under democratic capitalism (or even non-authoritarian socialism, I'm fine with either). America has to consider our own political will though. The American public isn't going to stand and let ourselves get attacked. Blood begets blood. I'm sure as hell not going to stand for 2,974 of MY countrymen being killed by these fucking barbarians (sorry for the nonPCness, but terrorism IS a barbaric tactic, and it is what the American public are seeing). This puts the country at a tough place. You don't think that our generals feel the same way that I do? It's worse for them. They failed at defending those people. Blood begets blood.

For us to win? We'd have to have three goals, and be successful in all of them
1) Improve conditions in entire world to a tolerable level, make terrorism unappealing.
2) Make terrorism attacks tough to carry out (prevent them from getting WMDs firstly). You still have the problem of the billion and one Kalashnikovs out there (this is where you get into gun control and arming the people, it's not helped by the fact that you're not dealing with the US, you're dealing with a barely controlled Middle Eastern country).
3) Destroy those who do attack.

It's a lost cause basically. Terrorism will always be a viable tactic. You want you're "America won the war!" Coup de grace? Kill everyone I guess, then kill everyone who had a problem with killing them all.

[SniHjen]

Terrorism is usually defined as the use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians (or non-combatants) to achieve a (generally) political goal.

With that definition, the us gov 2000-2008 would be considered terrorists by many.

[Strife26]

We don't target civies.

You have to remember that civilian deaths help the other guy, not us.
Let me put it this way, the United States Army practices a principle called Overmatch. The Army's goal isn't it be better than anything they're going to face. It isn't to be easily better. Overmatch dictates that the United States Army be able to take on any other army in the world and crush it. Why?

America's military aparatus is quite formidable (call me a jigonost, but we are the only superpower). However, we have a big weakness. Political will. The American people put a very high value on life. We're not going to leave becuase we can't win, or becuase our army can't continue. America loses wars when the public decides that to many people die. To a large extent, America wins or loses wars on the basis of her media. CNN loves printing US Air Force Bombs Iraqi shelter.
Remember those three goals I put above? Killing civvies gives terrorists recruitment ammo (the great satan kills your countrymen!). In anti-terror warfare, terrorism is counter productive.
Obviously, you can claim that any military action is terrorism to some extent (just like you can claim that WWII wasn't a justified war, or the Karl Marx is acutally God), but it isn't really acurate. Terrorism is a strategy of the weaker side, usually (or when two sides are matched, or when a dictator is maintaining poser). America doesn't gain much from it.

[SniHjen]

We don't target civies.

You don't have to kill "civies" in order to bend them to you will.

"the smoking gun, in the form of a.... mushroom cloud." FEAR!

It's not about hurting people, or killing them, it's about fear.

[Strife26]

You think that America would ever use a nuke?

[SniHjen]

You think that America would ever use a nuke?

No, I was refering to the language used by George W.