View Full Version : The Open Source War
NousDefionsDoc
10-16-2005, 17:28
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/15/opinion/15robb.html
I would be interested in hearing opinions on this...
As with all things Crap in = Crap out.
The concept would be hard to implement because "What is truth?"
As his little rant about the insurgency shows, he uses numbers to say we should have killed or jailed all the "insurgents" in Iraq by now based on our own estimation of the number of "insurgents" in Iraq at the start. The only problem with that line of thought is that a heap of those "insurgents" are "terrorists" coming in all the time from other countries.
A data in, truth out concept will only be as good as the people and their own opinions who manage the system.
Just my opinion of course.
NousDefionsDoc
10-16-2005, 19:07
So, you disagree?;)
VelociMorte
10-17-2005, 07:03
I agree with the author's assertion that what we need is a strategy "...similar to the strategy used to halt the insurgencies in El Salvador in the 1980's and Colombia in the 1990's. In those cases, these militias used local knowledge, unconstrained tactics and high levels of motivation to defeat insurgents..."
A Middle-Eastern version of "Los PEPES"...
Terrorists don't follow a rule book. We do, and the bad guys have read it. Our hands are tied, and they know it. We need to motivate a force of locals that have a stake in this game, and encourage them to covertly adopt the same tactics as the terrorists. Kill every fund-raiser, hate-preaching cleric, banker, friend, relative, business partner, and everyone associated with the terrorists. Shoot them, blow their houses up, booby-trap their cars....whatever it takes, then leave a sign around their necks describing who they are and what they did. Terrorize the terrorists. It's something they'll understand.
Veloci,
As an American, I am vehemently against the tactics you are talking about.
I think they reek of fundamentalism and bloodlust. Targeting friends, relatives, etc. where does it end? How many people will you kill? Where do you draw the line between who gets killed at that point? Are not individuals responsible for their own actions?
If someone buys a rifle from a gun store, then goes and shoots up a office building is it the state's right to then go in, kill the man, his family, his friends, the gun shop owner, all the employees of the shop and all of their families? Or worse facilitate vigilante's to go and act on the state's agenda?
Are we trying to bring these people technocracy or are we bringing them more of the same with a different flag?
Brutality didn't work for the Russians in Afghanistan or Chechnya, it didn't work for the British in South Africa or the French in Algiers. I personally don't want the United States to be backing people who commit such activities, if for no other reason than it opens the doors for aspiring future Sadam Husseins to act on the behalf of the US and build more emnity against our country.
"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."
* Translation: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
* Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
This being said, I think the US needs to work with locals to develop a sustainable infrastructure where dissident voices can have representation and not feel that the only way to express themselves is through violence.
I am not naieve. After elections and I do not think that all violence will suddenly cease. It is a long process of education, economic development, and stripping all religious/cults figures out of the government process.
j
I agree with the author's assertion that what we need is a strategy "...similar to the strategy used to halt the insurgencies in El Salvador in the 1980's and Colombia in the 1990's. In those cases, these militias used local knowledge, unconstrained tactics and high levels of motivation to defeat insurgents..."
A Middle-Eastern version of "Los PEPES"...
Terrorists don't follow a rule book. We do, and the bad guys have read it. Our hands are tied, and they know it. We need to motivate a force of locals that have a stake in this game, and encourage them to covertly adopt the same tactics as the terrorists. Kill every fund-raiser, hate-preaching cleric, banker, friend, relative, business partner, and everyone associated with the terrorists. Shoot them, blow their houses up, booby-trap their cars....whatever it takes, then leave a sign around their necks describing who they are and what they did. Terrorize the terrorists. It's something they'll understand.
The Israeli's tried this with limited success and found themselves to be just as hated as the Palestinian bombers doing the same deed. Only difference is that the retaliations were carried out by Isreali fundementalists.
What stability has this brought to Colombia and El Salvador? If anything it let those without power feel less and less in control of their country, and those in power hungry for more. Those in power could strong-arm politicians and get their way through corruption.
Case in point, Pablo Escobar was elected (as a substitute) to Colombia's congress. He portrayed himself as a modern day Robin Hood. We all know how he really was.
Veloci,
As an American, I am vehemently against the tactics you are talking about.
I think they reek of fundamentalism and bloodlust. Targeting friends, relatives, etc. where does it end? How many people will you kill? Where do you draw the line between who gets killed at that point? Are not individuals responsible for their own actions?
If someone buys a rifle from a gun store, then goes and shoots up a office building is it the state's right to then go in, kill the man, his family, his friends, the gun shop owner, all the employees of the shop and all of their families? Or worse facilitate vigilante's to go and act on the state's agenda?
Are we trying to bring these people technocracy or are we bringing them more of the same with a different flag?
Brutality didn't work for the Russians in Afghanistan or Chechnya, it didn't work for the British in South Africa or the French in Algiers. I personally don't want the United States to be backing people who commit such activities, if for no other reason than it opens the doors for aspiring future Sadam Husseins to act on the behalf of the US and build more emnity against our country.
"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."
* Translation: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
* Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
This being said, I think the US needs to work with locals to develop a sustainable infrastructure where dissident voices can have representation and not feel that the only way to express themselves is through violence.
I am not naieve. After elections and I do not think that all violence will suddenly cease. It is a long process of education, economic development, and stripping all religious/cults figures out of the government process.
j
Well said, I do agree that more severe measures need to take place to ensure safety but outright slaughtering associates will get you nowhere fast. You'll only force those out that you intended to help because you're killing a fellow countryman, religiously same person, or any combo of things beyond your imagination. People inherently will associate themselves with others for comfort. This is done on all levels, financial standing, religion, looks, beliefs, etc.....
VelociMorte
10-17-2005, 11:38
Eva, Muslim fundamentalist terrorists follow no rules but their own. Their rules are as follows: "Kill anyone and everyone who does not agree with us, or anyone who gets in our way, by any means possible." In other words, they abide by no law, convention, or rule but their own. Our rules, our laws, our compassion, pity, sympathy, charity, ...all are seen as weakness, and are used against us. For example, we don't normally shoot at ambulances, and everyone knows this. It's in our "rule book". The bad guys read that book. They know that they can drive around in an ambulance, set up I.E.D.s, mortar the "good guys", shoot civilians, and create general hate and discontent with impunity, because to shoot at an ambulance is against everything we stand for. On the other hand, it's a "soft target" for the terrorist, so they don't have an issue with shooting at one, especially if it's full of helpless, wounded soldiers.
Here's another example for you: We, the "good guys", don't shoot at religious sites like mosques. Guess what? The bad guys know this, so they set up arms caches and staging areas in mosques. We have to wait until someone gets killed before we can return fire at a mosque.
We are fighting against an enemy that sees no wrong in blowing up a street-full of children to get at us. We are fighting an enemy that has no problem with kidnapping and beheading, rape, murder, mass execution, or torture. They will never stop, as long as they exist. One way or another, we have to see that they become extinct. We have to convince these terrorists and anyone who supports them that "terrorism" is an extremely hazardous undertaking with little chance of success, that brings with it a high probability of death, suffering, and the destruction of all they hold dear.
Veloci
I do not deny that the insurgency the US faces in Iraq or Afghanistan today is innocent of any of the things you mention. But I don't see how targeting the families, friends and relatives of possible enemy soldiers/insurgents/terrorists makes things any better.
Why would any army on earth be stupid enough to attempt to face the US in a conventional war?! I do not admire actions taken by insurgents but I understand them. They are doing what works. What has been proven to work by Chechnyan rebels. Occupy non-combatant locations, attack conventional forces, when the conventional troops knock out the whole building to get the 4-5 men inside, it turns the locals against the conventional soldiers and makes great anti-US propaganda. It gives fuel to people who would say, "US occupation for oil, look how much they care about these people...they just kill them!"
I also think there is far more to fundamentalist terrorism than "kill everyone who is not with us". They are smarter than that. I'm not sure how much faith to place in the analysis written in the book "Imperial Hubris" but I felt his analysis of how fundamentalist cells gain power seemed logical and well defined.
I believe that when the chips are down is when you truly get to know who people are. Principles only mean something if you stick to them in the worst of times, otherwise it's just a bumper sticker.
I don't believe it is possible to kill an idea. I cannot think of a single episode in the 20th century or even the 19th where a religion/race has been successfully exterminated because if I understand you, that is what you are advocating. Extermination. Making those who are against us and anyone who knows or is related to them extinct.
My support of the US led war in Iraq had little to do with WMDs or possible terrorist connections. It had mostly to do with getting rid of an especially brutal and psychotic man who we(the people of the United States) had propped up and supported when it suited the US interests to fight another nation the US needed to punish(Iran). Who had since instituted ethnic cleansing without challenge using chemical weapons. Whose people we abandoned after the first gulf war when we told them to rise up against his army. Whose bodies we are still finding in mass graves around the country.
j
NousDefionsDoc
10-17-2005, 15:22
Los PEPES was not a strategy, it was an accident.
unconstrained tactics and high levels of motivation to defeat insurgents..."
^^^Sometimes the only thing people understand is the "big stick." History has clearly shown the "big stick" to be most effective...
VelociMorte
10-18-2005, 06:33
Eva, I am NOT advocating that the United States Military adopt the same tactics as the insurgents. I AM advocating that we give the Iraqi people the tools (ie. training, weapons, and Intel) to rid themselves of the undesirables. I'm certain that enough people have lost their wives, husbands, sons, and daughters to random terrorist attacks on the civilian population to fuel a very angry force of vigilanties. I am NOT advocating the "extermination" of anyone based on race or religion. I AM advocating the extermination of terrorists and everyone associated with them. Remove the support base and organization, and all you have left is a bunch of unorganized, angry individuals trying to make bombs out of matchsticks.
"Principles only mean something if you stick to them in the worst of times, otherwise it's just a bumper sticker. "
The enemy will exploit your "principles" just as I stated in the previous examples. Rather than having to shoot into crowds or at ambulances to take out an immediate threat, it simply makes more sense, and is more "principled" to take out the threat before it is able to exploit your principles. What is more principled; blowing up a terrorist in his own home where he is encouraged and supported, or waiting until he is out in a crowded market, knee-deep in dead kids, holding the trigger down on his RPK? At that point, I personally would hesitate. Unless I had a really clean shot, I would not shoot back for fear of hitting a civilian, and that principled decision could cost me my life, and it could cost the lives of many civilians. They could carve a statement about principles on my grave marker.
The idiot who straps on a vest-full of explosives, or drives a car-bomb...he's the lowest man on the totem-pole. There's a line of brainwashed religious fanatics waiting to take his place. If you cut off the head, ie. the Financiers, the madrassas with their hate-preaching clerics, the bomb-makers, the supportive village elder, the border-crossing guard who takes bribes to look the other way, the forger....everyone who makes up a terrorist cell or network and everyone who supports them, then the snake will die.
Veloci
Eva, I am NOT advocating that the United States Military adopt the same tactics as the insurgents. I AM advocating that we give the Iraqi people the tools (ie. training, weapons, and Intel) to rid themselves of the undesirables.
To me, there is very little difference between asking an American soldier or an Allied Iraqi soldier to do this. Certainly the world will judge America by the actions of her allies. The end is still the same. A person trained and equipped by the United States executing our foreign policy through violence. I am not opposed to this concept, but I am opposed to there being no central authority or reponsibility...
Perhaps a version of the US Marshalls that is focused on insurgency? I seem to recall that various PDs had sent reps to Iraq to help train the police force.
I am NOT advocating the "extermination" of anyone based on race or religion. I AM advocating the extermination of terrorists and everyone associated with them. Remove the support base and organization, and all you have left is a bunch of unorganized, angry individuals trying to make bombs out of matchsticks.
If you cut off the head, ie. the Financiers, the madrassas with their hate-preaching clerics, the bomb-makers, the supportive village elder, the border-crossing guard who takes bribes to look the other way, the forger....everyone who makes up a terrorist cell or network and everyone who supports them, then the snake will die.
Is this even possible though?
While I am not an expert at terrorism and how cells are formed/operate, from what I do know, cells are formed from groups with little or no knowledge or connection to each other.
My understanding is that cells are designed to operate with a broad objective but no central command authority. That way if one is rolled up, it does not compromise the other. A network "central authority" does not know the exact numbers and capabilities of its own organization to protect itself, other than in a general manner?
Weapons and bomb making materials are easy enough to procure in almost any country in the world. Knowledge of how to produce weapons must be disseminated, but in a world composed of such broad communication networks we must realize that taking out every training camp in the world, were it even possible, would only be a temporary impediment to the education of individuals in these skills.
The French discovered this the hard way in Algiers. They had elite commandos who managed to crush cell after cell until they completely rolled up the primary group that was instigating the "terrorist attacks". They took out the entire organization. They won. Yet within a few years Algiers was in chaos. An shortly thereafter, a new government in place that was totally hostile to the French.
When we discuss the elimination of terrorists, we must look to successful models where insurgency has been crushed. Can we cite even one? The classical European methods of maintaining empire have found little success in a post 1950 environment. I believe the US had the right idea, with hearts and minds but if we are to help these people build a country where lawlessness is punished, then we must teach them to act as a force governed by laws and not a mob IMHO.
The door for civil war is open in Iraq. Civil wars are always the worst. And something I feel America opened the door for when we had no "Marshall Plan" for the reconstruction of the country after we won the conventional war there. (And if we had a Marshall Plan, it sure as hell didn't seem to get things done very well) When you give people reason to be dissatisfied, it makes them look for alternatives.
In this case, several religious fundamentalists saw an opportunity and siezed it. We cannot kill them all anymore, because it would mean we would have to find them all and that is exactly the kind of thing these small organizations are trained to avoid! Being found.
Give the people of Iraq a reason to believe in their government. Make them want to help us. Protect their neighborhoods, make sure they have running water and power. Make sure their schools have air conditioners. Make sure the people have jobs and a safe way to get to/from them! When insurgents are thought of as criminals in an area, they will get the same treatment as criminals in the USA. If the government and military show they care about the welfare of the people, then the people will have reason to support the government.
Of course, it's easier to make people angry and harnass that. That's what today's insurgent leader is able to take advantage of. They aren't good at rebuilding, at providing infrastructure, they're only good at destroying. You can see this in examples of cell leaders in places like Serbia and Chechnya when the fighting stops. The people love them but they are useless at organization, etc and they fail.
So many people are sheep and they need a leader, be it religion or a political party or whatever. Something that will shepard them to a greater good. If we do not make ourselves the best option, then we will never be able to bring these people peace.
j
Team Sergeant
10-18-2005, 09:37
We (the US Military, the United States) do not need to once again be associated with the "death squads". We fight by a set of rules and are limited to what we can/will do because of these rules.
Intelligent, civilized bipeds have rules they follow where as uncivilized persons have no rules and make them up as they go. They also lack any moral or ethical reasoning and because of this lack of moral character will commit the most abhorrent repugnant crimes against humans possible knowing the western media will publish their transgressions in order to scare many others.
VelociMorte, if we were to employ their tactics we would be no better then the islamic cowards themselves. The tactic we are currently using is to find each coward and bring him to justice or bring justice to him. Limit collateral damage as not to disenfranchise the local populace. I could go on and on but I’m sure you get the point. We are limited because we have a reputation and the moral high-ground, we lose that high-ground and the war on islamic cowards is over.
Have no doubt we are winning this war, as told by their tactics. In the beginning they went toe to toe with the US military, now they use IED's and islamic suicide bombers because they are cowards. Because they are cowards they now turn their bombs on their own people. They are doing this because they now know they cannot intimidate the United States (not while we have a republican sitting in office) or it's people. They are looking for the weakest possible link to frighten. Now it's up to the people of Iraq to stand for what is right, to stand for their own freedom or die on their knees.
IMO this war would be over if we targeted a few deserving nations along with their dictators, syria, jordan, yemen iran and a few others come to mind. History tells us that when we target national level terrorists (heads of state) they will think twice before sponsoring/supporting international terrorists. Such was the case with momar kadafi back in 1986 when the US sent a message via 500 pounders and some with his name on them.
Time will tell if we chose the proper strategy. I believe we did, I believe we are now doing what should have been done during slick willies (klinton’s) tenure, and we are now bestowing dirt naps on deserving individuals. IMO and having served during slick willies term, I believe he was afraid, and not for a nation but like saddam, he was afraid to lose his own life if the United States went toe to toe with the islamic cowerists (bin laden). I always said, before saddam was captured, that he would be taken alive, because it was easy to see in his eyes he was no warrior but a scared little man, I believe slick wille is the same scared little man and my proof is that bin laden was breathing free air during his tenure.
TS
VelociMorte
10-18-2005, 09:54
Eva, there are a few recent successful examples of where this strategy works: The North Vietnamese and VC, the Khmer Rouge, and Los PEPES in Columbia. I'm sure there are others. No matter how intent we are on winning the "hearts and minds" of the civilian populace by providing them with food, clean water, air conditioning, schools, etc. , it's all for naught if the bad guys come into town, line up the men and shoot them, rape the women, burn the schools, and make the kids watch it all. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who are bad, just for the sake of being bad. No amount of goodness or principles will change them. A bullet in the head will.
Anyone can make a crude bomb out of pipe and any rapidly combustible material. Any twelve year-old could figure it out. It's a little more difficult to make a reliable initiating device in your garage, and the mortality rate is high for the uneducated. It's a totally different ballgame when you get into multi-kilo, command detonated, shaped-charge explosive devices. It takes an engineer, a supplier, and someone willing to transport, plant, and initiate the device. While the former might kill or wound a handful at close range, the latter has the capability to kill hundreds. With the exception of few countries, it's not that easy for a civilian to obtain high-order explosives, initiating devices, and someone willing and able to construct a destructive device. It takes criminal contacts willing to be party to mass murder. Eliminate these people and you make it very difficult for terrorists to blow stuff up. Profit and ideology drive them. A bullet in the head stops them.
Terrorist cells all have certain needs, regardless of their ideology. Foremost among these is funding. Whether funded through criminal acts, or by religious charity....guns, explosives, housing, food, travel, training and education, forged documents...none of these are free. Eliminate the funds and the terrorists are stuck in their Third-World mud huts armed with sticks. Simple concept: Fund terrorists, get a bullet in the head.
Organization: Believe it or not, no matter how charitable, kind, and helpful we are, some people will always hate us. In some countries, a male's entire education consists of memorizing the Koran and why infidels like you and me deserve to die. The really dedicated ones might then progress to a camp where they learn how to kill infidels more effectively. Throughout this "education" there are individuals teaching their own personally perverted version of Islam to impressionable young men with little in life to look forward to thanks to the wonderful education they have received. They've been literally brainwashed into thinking that since this life sucks, they might as well just get it over with, do the will of "Allah" and kill some infidels, and advance to paradise and those 72 willing virgins. To us it sounds crazy, but to a guy who has been raised in the seventh-century, it's a glorious future. The Madrasses are where this starts. Someone funds and organizes these schools. Someone funds and organizes the training camps. Someone takes these fully formed terrorists, gives them a mission, and sends them forth from the nest. A bullet in the head for each of them.
Eva, you cannot reason with someone who finds it acceptable, and even desirable to kill as many innocent people as possible. You cannot reason with someone who finds you a loathsome infidel worthy of nothing but death. As unfortunate as it is, violence is all that some people understand. That is who and what we are dealing with. The majority of the "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan are foreign fighters that have traveled to these countries for the sole purpose of killing American Soldiers and anyone who "collaborates" with them. They are not fighting for their country, their lifes, their loved-ones, their freedom, or any other motivational factor we would consider normal. They fight only to kill. The only way to stop them is to kill them first.
VelociMorte
10-18-2005, 10:35
TS, don't get me wrong. I'd die before I'd take an innocent life, or advocate the taking of same. I'm not talking "Death Squads" where anything goes; I'm talking more along the lines of "Frontier Justice".
Sometimes treating terrorism as a crime, and terrorists as criminals just doesn't work. Even now, we are fighting people who were arrested, detained, and released for lack of evidence that would stand up in a court of law. We knew they were guilty when we PUC'ed 'em, but couldn't take the case to trial for various reasons. Some JAG dude half a world away decides the case is weak, and the bad guy gets a ticket home. A month later, he's planting I.E.D.s on the road.
If an Afghan father drags the guy who harbored the bad guys who intentionally burned the school down with his daughters in it, out into the street and puts a bullet in his head, I'm all for it.
If the Paki brother puts a bullet into the nutbag cleric who convinced his sibling to strap on a vest and kill a crowd at the bazaar, I'm all for it.
If the entire populace gets together, organizes, roots out the bad guys, and hangs them from lamp posts, I'm all for it.
If the Saudi Banker who routes funds to a hundred hate-preaching Madrassas, turns into a pink cloud after starting his Mercedes Benz, I'm all for it.
If we don't eliminate the root of the problem, next year we'll be in Indonesia, P.I., or one of the other 'Stans. While I agree totally with you in that we should go after Heads of State that support and harbor terrorists, sending a cruise missile or two to do the job is not too dissimilar to sending a robotic death squad with a nice paint job. I'm all for it, but a group of pissed-off locals would be cheaper.
Peregrino
10-18-2005, 13:31
VM - Death squads are what your suggestions inevitably lead to. They are most assuredly not the answer. Vigilantes are a genie best left in the bottle. At best they are a stopgap until the government is strong and secure enough that the people no longer feel a need to deliver justice personally. As it is, "Frontier (vigilante) Justice" will probably be the (an) inevitable outcome of the current internal instability in Iraq (notice I do not call it an insurgeny - words are powerful tools, why bestow legitimacy with a respectable label?). It is also solely the job of the Iraqi people. The US cannot in any way be seen to participate in or condone the actions of individuals or groups seeking extra-legal justice.
Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. I spent enough time in El Sal plus a couple trips to Colombia to agree with most of Eva's version of morality. What you suggest is an attractive sounding, expedient (read - "feel good") solution but it simply perpetuates the age-old cycles of violence. The French tried your model during the first "Battle for Algiers". Despite initial successes the long term damage caused by the methods used eventualy cost the war and resulted in a change of government in France. We experimented with our own version with the Phoenix Project during RVN. It too had initial tactical successes that were more than offset by the stratigic losses suffered when the program was exposed to the American people. We need a solution that will work over the long term that doesn't compromise our principles.
The foreign terrorists are actually a small part of the problem. Their influence is distorted far beyond their actual combat power by public perceptions of their bombing campaign. Excluding the imported terrorists - and even if the US withdrew tomorrow - there would still be an insurgency in Iraq. The critical population is the Sunni minority. That's why they are fighting so hard to foment civil war and prevent anything resembling federalism in whatever future Iraq has. They stand to lose everything. The Sunnis have no apparent incentive to cooperate in the creation of a new state. They understand their vulnerability and fully expect to have to "pay the piper" now that their minority has been stripped of the power it amassed under the previous regime. They also understand and dread the consequences of the last 40 years (plus the previous 1300 years of Sunni/Shia religious infighting) better than ANY American ever will. Somehow somebody has to figure out how to overcome these obstacles and include (incent - thanks FS) the Sunnis to participate in a new Iraq. Then we can solve the rest of the problem. The only way to create a stable, progressive society (notice - I did not say democratic though I hope that is what happens) is to establish the "rule of law" and use RICO style police intelligence work to attack and dismantel terrorist infrastructure and special ops DA types to target the terrorists themselves.
My .02 - Peregrino
If you cut off the head, ie. the Financiers, the madrassas with their hate-preaching clerics, the bomb-makers, the supportive village elder, the border-crossing guard who takes bribes to look the other way, the forger....everyone who makes up a terrorist cell or network and everyone who supports them, then the snake will die.
I have second thoughts about the long term viability of cutting off the head and letting the snake die. I think you have to pound it repeatedly after the head is off. Even then, the idea may remain.
But that's not what I was going to say. If we manage to bring democracy to the Middle East, if they manage to get an economy going that can support them as the world gradually lessens their dependancy on oil, I wonder if the lack of leadership in Islam can work to our advantage? Can it be so that these instigators become relics of a past time, without credibility to arise their fellow men's anger? As have been said, the culture has to evolve and they have to go through tough times without targetting the outside to manage their internal instability. They have to accept individual and then collective responsibility.
I think that one of the most important aspects of freedom is a part of freedom's very definition. The freedom to choose a religion and belief. I also think it's one of its biggest achilles heals, only made insignificant by the people and respect for the rule of law. I think that a society whose values become watered down and too intellectual lose a part of what makes it human. I think that's where moral relativity enters and I think that's, partly, why Christianity has made progress in China.
Whether or not there is a God, there still appears to be an innate place inside many for something outside of you, untouchable, yet very close and larger than yourself. Actually, if not before, then when the clouds are gathering, it is a comforting thought to have the power of supreme love and justice behind you, in you. To continue fighting for the well-being of a thousand worlds is a bit more motivating than your own current miserability.
So I don't think democracy and freedom is going to remove religion and I don't think it should, or can. There'll always be people believing. Could be that they are not of faith for the common good, but perhaps because they can find no other way of establishing their moral rules, or because they're weak. Either way, that will remain a pool of willing for the seekers of power.
We need some values to live up to, and role models, good stories, violence and love.
Martin
EDIT:
PS. During measurements of brain activity during heavy-duty prayer, there is a specific place in the back of the head that becomes active - especially during nirvana and such. So if you've ever wondered where God's at... ;)
VM,
I think I've said my piece on this matter, but I wanted to respond to a few points...
Eva, there are a few recent successful examples of where this strategy works: The North Vietnamese and VC, the Khmer Rouge, and Los PEPES in Columbia.
I could be mistaken but the VC and the Khmer Rouge were both "insurgent/revolutionary" groups that prevailed against US backed governments.
Terrorist cells all have certain needs, regardless of their ideology...Fund terrorists, get a bullet in the head.
In Robert Baer's book "Sleeping with the Devil" and in Steven Emerson's book "The American House of Saud" both authors detail how US politicians have been responsible for a tremendous amount of funding to be passed to fundamentalist organizations with ties to terror groups.
Apparently Emerson's book was so on the money, he had a hit put out on him by some of the groups.
Organization: Believe it or not, no matter how charitable, kind, and helpful we are, some people will always hate us...and sends them forth from the nest. A bullet in the head for each of them. Eva, you cannot reason with someone who finds it acceptable, and even desirable to kill as many innocent people as possible...The only way to stop them is to kill them first.
I think this characterization of our enemy seems very shallow. I think that Islam is a complex religion and like all religions, there are some fundamentalist types who bask in the strict rules that they can live their lives by.
I do not deny that there are some sinister people populating our world, but there are many others who see themselves not as evil but as soldiers. Whether or not we regard them in this manner makes no difference to them. Their leaders demonize us with shallow generalization backed by religious doctrine...much as I feel our leaders have presented the enemy to the general population. People everywhere want things to be simple. This is our enemy, they are evil, the end.
I believe our enemy is sophisticated and intelligent. Their strategies time proven to succeed. We must be smarter than them. We must not become clouded with hatred and distracted by revenge. Building a nation with histories of violence such as Iraq and Afghanistan is not an easy task and cannot be simply reduced to a tagline.
We need to build. We need to give them hope. We need to educate them and help them get jobs. In short, we need to help them build their own country. We need the people to know we are there to help and then leave. If America can do this, it will take the sting out of every venomous charge these mullah's and the like make about our country and countrymen.
j
The Reaper
10-18-2005, 17:02
I could be mistaken but the VC and the Khmer Rouge were both "insurgent/revolutionary" groups that prevailed against US backed governments.
You are mistaken. The VC were effectively eliminated as a fighting force in Tet 1968.
The war was won by a conventional NV Army attack against the forces of South Vietnam.
Was the KR finally victorious against a US backed government, or against a later regime?
TR
Perhaps the following from the War College would be of interest to those engaged in the present conversation?
The Struggle Against Extremist Ideology (http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usacsl/publications/SAE-TOC.pdf)
Peace and Stability Education Workshop (http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usacsl/publications/IP13-05.pdf)
Addressing the Conditions that Foster Terrorism (http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usacsl/publications/10-05.pdf)
You are mistaken. The VC were effectively eliminated as a fighting force in Tet 1968.
The war was won by a conventional NV Army attack against the forces of South Vietnam.
Was the KR finally victorious against a US backed government, or against a later regime?
TR
Eva, The Reaper is 100%. the KR and VC winning is part of propaganda out there. A deal was struck with the Soviet that NVN and SVN would fight it out unsupported. The USA kept it's bargan, The Soviets and China did not, dispite SVN not having USA support it still took about 3yrs for NVN to defeat them. Does not really say much for NVN, with all the Communist support and SVN having no support, it took them(NVN-Bac Nam) that long. The Nixon China documents are now released and you can read them. Contrary to popular myths, the USA is good at keeping it's agreements. As with the Gulf War, not to go in and take Saddam out, the USA agreed to that stipulation as part of the forming the Gulf War Coalition. The critics are still blamming the USA for not doing it in the Gulf War, and then they yell about the USA not keeping it's agreements. Interesting the contradiction in their lies about the US. Personnally there is NO news in the US media, mostly entertainment and Hollywood BS.
The one thing I have noticed about alot of muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia is that its the crusades all over again and they have this "us vs them" mentality.
You can argue with them about logical explanations on anything under the sun..they just refuse to accept these terrorists (the same idiots who kill other muslims) are evil and what they are doing is justified (the insurgency in Iraq, Palestine and the recent Lebanon war where a number of Isreali army regulars were kidnapped in a cross border raid which led to the 30 something day war.)
Its very very fustrating trying to make any sense of any logical answers they give. And I find more and more muslims are thinking this way. Very radical way of thinking I must say.
brownapple
11-17-2006, 06:21
Eva, there are a few recent successful examples of where this strategy works: The North Vietnamese and VC, the Khmer Rouge, and Los PEPES in Columbia.
You've lost me.
The VC pretty much ceased to exist because the NVA sacrificed them intentionally during Tet '68.
The Khymer Rouge for the most part are still alive. Dying of old age, not bullets to the head.
I don't know about Los PEPES, but NDD seems to have already addressed that.
Noslack71
11-17-2006, 18:13
N
NousDefionsDoc
11-18-2006, 06:18
Los PEPES were not insurgents, the were criminals/vigilantes - depending on your point of view.
sfbaby1982
02-17-2007, 11:06
I am reading this and wanting to reply but I am going to have to preface this by admitting that 1. I am severely outmatched in my resources, specifically quoting sources and 2. I am still cutting my teeth in the community. But I do still have some nagging thoughts about this discussion. Everything here is IMO.
Some have argued for a change in the tactical execution of targets, specifically the type of "justice" that is brought to them and their obvious associates. This is the new, Long War, lets talk strategically since everyone here is talking about the longterm effects of short term actions. Brute force against an open opponent is often met with little resistance, in the case of US forces, just like two bodies of water colliding; that force is merely redistributed and redirected elsewhere. Defeat the army, disband them giving them motivation, and then sit back and hope that they all peacefully rejoin under the people that just stripped them of the only respectable job they have ever had in their life. No, their force and inertia had already shifted, united under an established COC with elements of influential terrorist organizations and religious overtones, to wards alternate means.
The only example, in recent history that I can equate this use of force to is WWII. Not only were we at war with two populations which were brainwashed but we were fighting it on two fronts. The end result was that open war was declared and entire cities, men, women and children were decimated. Firebombing was the standard and terror was imposed on every population at all times. These however were educated and developed industrial countries which had seen prosperity in recent memory. The enemy then are now two fully functioning 1st world nations. What if the only thing that these countries had ever known was that they were always living in the equivalent of bombed out buildings. Men, women and children's lives held no value, like the buildings which they lived in. Where would war take them then...further into the depths of depravity. Where is their contrast between right and wrong; between the benefits of being a prosperous world member and merely maintaining the status quo? Do any of the Iraqis remember? Afghanis? Definitely not. Granted Iraq was a fairly advanced country relative to its neighbors, could that be used as an argument to negate this point? No.
I mentioned my limited resource gathering before I wrote this so bear with me. In SERE school we watched a video detailing a downed pilot in Vietnam. A particularly vicious NV interrogator forewent his normal brutal sessions to tell one of the captive US Service members that he was their greatest weapon. Going further by saying that with him and his fellow captives the NV would attack the US and win the war in the streets of NY and D.C. The couldn't defeat us in open combat but they knew that the established pattern dictated that the US population could not stand the "Long War." Doesn't that seem, to anyone else, to be the same situation here. The problem is not whether the insurgents are winning. They believe, as a result of the lack of education of the two populations, that they are winning. Until we convince them otherwise and take that hope of eventual victory, they will continue to fight. They have nothing else.
That is the best recruiting slogan of all. Sure we might capture 1000 to 3000 insurgents a month. How many are truly taken out of the fight? If they are detained, how many use that mere detention as the motivation to strike back and join the insurgency? Give me figures on that and that might give you an idea why this insurgency might not be growing but it sure doesn't seem to be decreasing dramatically.
If I knew nothing of physics, as most did at the high point of catholicism, why not search for answers in the controlling power of a god. Most Muslims live this by saying "en sha allah." God willing. They think that he will assert himself in every minute detail of everyday existence. Does God make the pen fall from the table? Does he dictate where the bullet will go or is that based on the sight picture and proper trigger squeeze? In Yemen (my most current operational experience) the educated soldiers had grasped this concept fully, the other had not. They regularly referred to them as the most likely to go and fight against us in theater. These were the locals saying this openly. Following religion is an alternative to a "good" life. Its not even thought of as taboo as dropping out of high school to pursue a life of drug dealing in America. Simply because it produces a product that everyone can relate to: Simplicity and direction without the application of critical thinking to solve life's troubles. Make it simple and keep the people stupid. Hell, when was the last time you read an army manual written above the Th grade reading level? (thats a bad example but tell me you see my point)
From all this I gather that killing them isn't merely enough. Not even outright destruction, as satisfying as it may be. Educating them that life isn't determined solely on faith in a higher power will surely help but that comes with generations of learning and teaching. Just as the fall of most religions has, historically coincided with the introduction of new sciences and a new religion which accepted this new science. Education will lead to a greater understanding within their population, disconnecting religion with daily life, and fostering a forward looking perspective based on successful nation building. Rhetoric and propaganda feeds on that lack of education. No one wants their suicide bomber looking forward to clean streets and running water and power. That is Enemy Number 2. Enemy Number 1 is their inherent feeling of hope. We cry for a pullout and they praise the people who follow that calling. We aren't going to overtly beat Enemy Number 1 but I pray that we beat Enemy Number 2 then hopefully history will show that Iraq and Afghanistan can become leading 1st world industrial economies although they never recognize our contribution.
If we manage to bring democracy to the Middle East...
One of the keystone principals of democracy is the freedom of speech or expression. Is it possible to have freedom of speech without freedom of religion? Is it possible to establish a democracy in a middle-eastern country where the ability to discuss Christianity or other religions other then Islam is not tolerated? Sounds like a long shot to me. just my 2 cents.
Related to the other issues, it seems we cannot descredit the ideology that fuels many of the insurgents because Isalm is a schizophrenic religion; simultaneously advocating peace and violence. Therefore we must discredit the leaders. We must use any and every means to show their leaders in a bad light. They seem to have a prospensity for luxury while their followers wallow in poverty. They seem to be cowards advocating others to blow themselves up for the cause while they cower safely in the rear. Every time one of the these POS violates any law of Islam, it needs to be front page news. We need to attack these guys where they are the weakest.
At the same time, if we can boost their economy and provide some light at the end of the tunnel we may provide hope for the little folks. We need to be tenacious in rooting out the hard core extremist and show no mercy to the foreign fighters, and these foreign fighters need to fall under a different set of ROE when they are caught. They should be immediately executed. We need to punish any Iranians caught in country with extreme prejudice. The government of Iran needs to be held accountable for any Iranians involved in insurgency whether or not we can prove their government had knowlege of their actions. For every Iranian fighter or weapons found, we need to kill 20 or more Iranian republican guard until they stay the F out of Iraq.
We need to get the paper pushers out of the battle and turn the dogs loose on the bad guys, and I believe that is what we are trying to do. However, congress and the senate may have different ideas and from what I hear from the front lines I'm not so sure our military leadership understands it either.
Recently I heard of a soldier in Iraq who was fired upon by an insurgent. The soldier returned fire killing the insurgent and wounding another. He was then required to accompany the severly wounded insurgent back to the hospital where he was admonished for not filling out the proper paperwork! :mad: The freaking paper pushers need to get the F out of Iraq! This soldier then was required to spend the next 48 hours watching over the wounded insurgent, who was in ICU, in case the insurgent tried to escape. Escape? It seems to me the two concepts are mutually exclusive: ICU and escape.
My son recently was providing overwatch from the top of a hotel for some troops kicking doors below. He spotted a haji with a cell phone and binoculars but was denied permission to engage. If the political environment in country is so charged that an officer is so afraid of being second guessed that permission to kill the enemy is not readily given, we need to change that right now, and in no uncertain terms. If the Iraqi leadership does not like it then they can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned. Either you want our help or you don't.
I hope the new commander in Iraq straightens out these situations in a most ricky tick fashion otherwise the more intricate missions and objectives don't have a prayer of being successful or achieved.
One of the keystone principals of democracy is the freedom of speech or expression. Is it possible to have freedom of speech without freedom of religion? Is it possible to establish a democracy in a middle-eastern country where the ability to discuss Christianity or other religions other then Islam is not tolerated? Sounds like a long shot to me. just my 2 cents..............
I will agree that democracy as WE know it could not exist in the Middle East. it would have to be changed and modified to meet the needs of the muslim faith.
I will disagree with your statement that discussion of Christianity and other religions is not tolerated. It may be true for the 'orthodox' types like the Wahabbists from Saudi Arabia, but they're not the majority. Islam at it's core is a very tolerant religion. In fact it says to embrace other believers in 'God" no matter what religion that particular God belongs to because they're all the same 'God'. How is it that in other countries over there (including Iraq before 2003) that Muslims and Christians could live side by side without and problems? Look at Egypt. Heck, in 2003 nobody I met in Iraq cared about the beliefs of the neighbors. (As long as they weren't Jewish of course...) There was one neighborhood where the one street had Sunnis and Shias AND Christians all living together. Not a single problem.
Makes ya wonder how we got to this point... :rolleyes:
As far as "releasing the dogs" I tend to disagree. We need a new strategy, that's for sure, but you can't just go over there and beat everyone down. It may work at first, but it's a downward spiral. It may start with sticking it to the verified 'insurgents' but where does it stop? What happens when people come to us and tell us that their neighbor is an insurgent (which happens a lot) because they're mad they have more sheep then them?
Like I told someone the past week, just because carpet bombing worked in WW2, doesn't mean it'll work again.
Team Sergeant
02-18-2007, 08:31
I will disagree with your statement that discussion of Christianity and other religions is not tolerated. It may be true for the 'orthodox' types like the Wahabbists from Saudi Arabia, but they're not the majority. Islam at it's core is a very tolerant religion. In fact it says to embrace other believers in 'God" no matter what religion that particular God belongs to because they're all the same 'God'. How is it that in other countries over there (including Iraq before 2003) that Muslims and Christians could live side by side without and problems? Look at Egypt. Heck, in 2003 nobody I met in Iraq cared about the beliefs of the neighbors. (As long as they weren't Jewish of course...) There was one neighborhood where the one street had Sunnis and Shias AND Christians all living together. Not a single problem.
Makes ya wonder how we got to this point... :rolleyes:
I'd like to know what you've been reading...... ;)
we can live besides rattlesnakes without problems also. Why do you think that is?
islam sure is tolerant, it tolerates radical beheadings, honor killing of ones own family members, unprovoked terrorist attacks against just about everyone to include themselves.
imans in major middle eastern universities and throughout the world preaching hate.
the tolerence of using their young as bombs to send a message.
I could go on for days.....
It's not the people I hold no tolerence for, just islam and its teachings.
Team Sergeant
The Reaper
02-18-2007, 09:01
jwt:
I hate to dogpile, but I have to agree with the TS on this one.
Islam has to be the least tolerant religion on the planet, and it has been for a long time. You need to refer back to the Koran where it states that non-believers must be converted at the point of the sword.
In case you forgot, US personnel in Islamic countries over the years have been subject to serious restrictions on their personal and religious freedom.
I do not see too many other religions convincing their people to blow themselves up in order to kill non-believers.
Christians in the Arab countries have largely been discriminated against and tolerated only as long as they were invisible. I can only think of a few exceptions.
TR
Oh boy...
Oh, I agree with all of your statements. I meant Islam at it's core.
Just like with all other religions, the teachings and meanings behind the words are often conveluted. Religion is flawed because it is spread by man.
In the Q'uran, it actually states that anyone who does not believe in God. Not the Muslim God, but God, reguardless of religion. The passage is meant as non-believers in a God. In other words, atheists.
I do agree that in the past 50 years or so Islam has been warped into a meaning behind terrorism, but Christianity was too. Examples: the Crusades, the Incquisition, etc.
Religion has always been used to spread agenda.
Let me clarify though, I hate every terrorist out there. I lost a few good friends out there and 3,000 more brothers and sisters. But I can't help but think that we (as a world) have brought this upon ourselves. Just in the 20th century alone the world shat all over the middle east so of course they're going to be a little bitter. What better way to convince people to fight a larger, better equipt force then tell them "God" is on their side?
:munchin
... I meant Islam at it's core....In the Q'uran, it actually states that anyone who does not believe in God.....
jwt5;
There is no core to islam. The Qu'ran was basicly written in two parts. The first was the peaceful part. The second, written as Muhammad gained power, is full of the blood, sword and hate part. The words of the Qu'ran, as it is believed, came to Muhammad when he was in a state of trace.
The Hadith, or Sunnah are the words of Muhammad when he was not in a state of trace.
All his words are to be taken in order with the later superseding the former. It is here that the muslim mind begins to run in circles. Because it is all the word of Muhammed it is all true, but because the later supersedes the former, the former is wrong, but its is true, but it's..... "Oh, heck, I'll just do what the imam tells me to".
Pete
The Reaper
02-18-2007, 11:15
Oh boy...
Oh, I agree with all of your statements. I meant Islam at it's core.
Just like with all other religions, the teachings and meanings behind the words are often conveluted. Religion is flawed because it is spread by man.
In the Q'uran, it actually states that anyone who does not believe in God. Not the Muslim God, but God, reguardless of religion. The passage is meant as non-believers in a God. In other words, atheists.
I do agree that in the past 50 years or so Islam has been warped into a meaning behind terrorism, but Christianity was too. Examples: the Crusades, the Incquisition, etc.
Religion has always been used to spread agenda.
Let me clarify though, I hate every terrorist out there. I lost a few good friends out there and 3,000 more brothers and sisters. But I can't help but think that we (as a world) have brought this upon ourselves. Just in the 20th century alone the world shat all over the middle east so of course they're going to be a little bitter. What better way to convince people to fight a larger, better equipt force then tell them "God" is on their side?
:munchin
You sound like an apologist making excuses for Islamic terrorism. You might want to do some better research and use the spell checker before posting again.
Perhaps you should also read this thread before continuing, as we have been over this all before.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1033
What region has not been "shat upon" at some point in their history? The better question is what region has had the influx of financial wealth that the Middle East has, yet has distributed so little of it and done so little with it, while blaming outside entities to divert attention from their own internal problems.
TR
Pete,
Good point. That's probably why there are so many people (in most religions) that just go to church, temple, etc, and don't try to study anymore of the topic. It's just easier to sit and listen. ;)
Reaper,
I am in no way an apologist for terrorists, I just prefer to base my arguments from both sides and play the 'devil's advocate' at times.
Also, thanks for pointing me to that thread! Very enlightening, and seeing how it's all been covered already, I'll go back to reading. :D