Dealing with terrorist

larfive · 06-23-2004, 14:26

Im sure that most you like myself have become furious about the outcome of the Korean hostage deal. It has become evident that the closer we come toward the June 30th deadline, the more desprite the extremist become in stoping such an event.

The previous victims of this so called Jihad where used by terrorist in order to create internal chaos within other countries governments. By brutally displaying barbaric acts on the internet, they hope to pursuade public opinion of the intended govornment.

How do we combat people like Al Sadr, Al Zaqawi, and others who clearly are threats to the Iraqi people and Americans?
One book came to mind as my collegues and I pondered this question. " Killing Pablo" by Mark Bowmen.

If you havent read the book, it is definately a must read. In this book the good guys where fighting Pablo Escobar and his cartel with their hands tied behind their backs, simply because like Zaqawi and Sadr, Pablo struck fear into the hearts and mind of the people. By doing so it allowed him to have the upper hand on his hunters. This came to a halt when a group known as "Los Pepes" starting fighting just as dirty as Pablo.

When Pablo killed, Los Pepes killed 2 fold. Anyone associated with Pablo was killed and left on display warning that others they would follow in the same manner. Pablo was now fight a war he himself could not win. Why? Simple, someone figured out away to fight Pablo at his own game and beat him at it.

Gents,
Do we need a form of Los Pepes? Why or why not. I would be particular interested in the pros and cons.

LarV

**Roguish Lawyer** · 06-23-2004, 14:46

That book also makes the point that Pablo was running his own hearts and minds campaign, building schools and churches and such IIRC. Query whether the bad guys in Iraq are doing the same.

NousDefionsDoc · 06-23-2004, 16:02

Los PEPES were for the most part the same trash as Escobar. Its easy to play be the other guy's rules when you ARE the other guy.

NousDefionsDoc · 06-23-2004, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
That book also makes the point that Pablo was running his own hearts and minds campaign, building schools and churches and such IIRC. Query whether the bad guys in Iraq are doing the same.

Hezbollah does, so I would guess the others are as well.

Jimbo · 06-23-2004, 19:30

Los Pepes did not defeat Escobar, they just created more violence.

Hunting high value targets is hard work and often does not work itself out within the paramenters of political timelines or attention spans.

Solid · 06-24-2004, 04:21

Do you think it is necessary for the US to, both covertly and overtly, avoid fighting a 'dirty war'?

Thank you,

Solid

larfive · 06-24-2004, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Los PEPES were for the most part the same trash as Escobar. Its easy to play be the other guy's rules when you ARE the other guy.

Good Point.
I understand your logic, however playing by someone elses rules doenst mean you have become them.

Jimbo,
Brother, I totally understand your point. What I am saying is simply if the shoes were on the other foot maybe things would be different. Im not saying we need forget about the Geneva rules and the ROEs, but we cannot always play be the rules to get things done. Haji will never abide by any rule if it is not within his ideological way of thinking.

Jimbo · 06-24-2004, 23:33

Here's the deal: it does not matter what rules they play by. Its just a matter of time. We'll play this war our way and they can play it theirs. I'm confident we will win.

Seeing this crap on a daily basis sucks, but it will end and the world will be a better place when it does.

Solid · 06-25-2004, 07:13

Looking back broadly at the history of war, though, doesn't seem to support the idea that we can continue fighting our own way and they theirs and eventually we will win. History, especially military history, is filled with adaptations. I'm reminded of the British operating in India, who accumulated irregular forces because their regulars couldn't handle the situation there properly.

I'm not saying by any measure that we have to get down and dirty, but it seems that our current conventional military is inadequately constructed to present a threat to terrorists and insurgents.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't win, it just makes winning harder.

JMO,

Solid

--Edited as per Jimbo's post.

Jimbo · 06-25-2004, 07:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Solid
I'm not saying by any measure that we have to get down and dirty, but it seems that our current conventional military is inadequately constructed to present a threat to terrorists and insurgents.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't win, it just makes winning harder.

I added a word for you. Otherwise, that's a pretty odd comment for a Special Forces forum.

Solid · 06-25-2004, 07:41

Thanks for noticing.
Would you agree with that assessment?

Thank you,

Solid

**Team Sergeant** · 06-25-2004, 08:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Solid
I'm not saying by any measure that we have to get down and dirty, but it seems that our current conventional military is inadequately constructed to present a threat to terrorists and insurgents.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't win, it just makes winning harder.

I disagree.

Terrorists have only one fear and that is being located by US intelligence efforts. Once that is accomplished we only need to select the proper weapon to eliminate the pond scum. The conventional military is very effective when employed properly.

Killing someone is easy, finding them is the tough part.

TS

Solid · 06-25-2004, 08:47

TS,
I was thinking more along the lines of reprecussions. It seems to me that with the notable exception of SOF designed for this role, our military is like using a hammer where a knife is required: we can kill the terrorists, but we often end up killing neutral targets and inspiring more people to join the terrorist's cause.
If the above problem arises from our conventional forces not being 'employed properly', then please allow me to modify my initial statement to read:
'it seems that our current conventional military is inadequately employed to present a threat to terrorist organizations.'

Thank you,

Solid

Smokin Joe · 06-25-2004, 09:15

Solid,

As pointed out by the BTDT I am confident that we will win this war as long as the government still has the intestinal fortitude to continue the mission.

Yes, it sucks seeing and hearing all of the insurgent strikes against our people in Iraq. However the U.S. Military has been very good at adapting new techniques to find and kill the enemy in this war. We just need to stay the course, let our guys do there job, support them to the fullest, and keep the fucking media out of it.

Just my .02 cents

**Team Sergeant** · 06-25-2004, 09:25

Solid,

A 500-2000 precision guided bomb dropped on a selected dwelling does not equate to a sledge hammer. We no longer eliminate city blocks in order to destroy one building. If you have been watching the recent US military air strikes occurring in downtown Baghdad you will notice this is exactly what we are employing to kill pond scum and by utilizing this very effective removal method we are in fact limiting the collateral damage.
We also are accepting/tolerating the collateral damage this method imparts.

Now if the pond scum is located next to a children’s school or a hospital we would most likely employ another method of pond scum removal. And then again if we desired to capture said pond scum in an effort to extract information concerning the location of more pond scum we would again rethink our weapons employment to achieve this end.

Every mission is different.

Try again.

Why is SOF more effective than the conventional military in combating global terrorism?