I just finished Louise Richardson's _What Terrorists Want_. It's an interesting read. Some of what she has to say is fairly contraversial in the present climate, perhaps even counter to emotional, if not rational, intuition. But she does a pretty good job of putting events into context and making her arguments make sense.
In rough summary, the author postulates that a conventional military offensive "war on terror" will not succeed, that describing terrorists as insane evildoers who hate freedom is counterproductive to an understanding that could reduce their influence, and that exaggerating the threat posed by terror (and using a correspondingly excessive response) increases the stature of terror groups, and gives a groups that, in reality, are far less powerful than those they oppose greater credibility and stature- in short, giving the terrorists exactly what they seek.
The author believes that western democracies could be far more effective by attempting to contain terrorism and isolate terrorists from the communities from which they might draw support and recruits. And that the U.S., in particular, would do well to remember that terrorism is not a new tactic, and many currently marginalized allies have long experiences in dealing with terrorism that the U.S. could stand to draw upon. That, far from "everything changing" on September 11, 2001, despite the tragedy of the event, the real change was the outlook of the U.S., its leadership and its citizenry.
After all, she explains, the deaths directly attributable to 9/11 were less than 1/5 of those who are killed yearly in U.S. drunk-driving accidents; further, that despite public sentiments to the contrary, the likelihood of another attack having a similar level of success post 9/11 are incredibly slim.
It definitely gives one some things to think on. Even (perhaps especially) if one thinks one might be inclined to disagree with the ideas within, it's worth a read.
[ November 11, 2007, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, duh. That sounds rather sensible. You can't really fight a war against an abstract concept or a military tactic. At least you can't do it using conventional methods. Terrorism comes from certain conditions, I think...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Sounds similar to Edward Luttwak's "Dead End: Counterinsurgency Warfare as Military Malpractice," from the February Harper's, but obviously with the greater depth that the book form affords over the essay form. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You can't really fight a war against an abstract concept or a military tactic. At least you can't do it using conventional methods.
I bombed Tuesday into the stone age.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, people say things like, "You can't fight a war against an abstract concept and win," and I agree. On the other hand, this kind of thinking is frequently taken to mean, "We shouldn't be opposing such and such concept with force," which I think is completely incorrect.
Unfortunately whenever a problem involves someone threatening you, and that someone is unwilling to be peacefully dissuaded, force will always be a necessary component of any response that works towards any sort of victory.
This is just as true for the so-called 'War on Drugs' as it is for the 'War on Terror'. But there haven't been any wars won on purely military grounds, at least none that I can think of. At least one of the following: politics, religion, economics, espionage, diplomacy, or cultural forces always play a role.
Does anyone dispute that any successful response to terrorism will have to involve some killing-and not just people being killed by terrorists?
Also, to say that 'terrorism comes from certain conditions' is too simplistically sympathetic. Some of the world's wealthiest people are terrorists, after all. And people suffer everywhere on the planet, but do not resort to terrorism. Terrorism can probably be made more likely by certain conditions, that's true, but that's a very different thing.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think your points have some validity, Rakeesh, but you're addressing Syn's post specifically (you only quoted her) and generalizing from that, despite a reasonably substantive post from Sterling.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* I largely agreed with that post is why I didn't respond to it, twinky. Except for the part referencing drunk driving deaths. I swear, car-related deaths are the whipping boy of all other kinds of death.
I also dispute the...reliability? of the statement concerning the likelihood of future attacks on such a scale. Might two colossal and famous buildings be brought down again in such a spectacular and bloody fashion? Almost certainly not. Could a similar or even greater body count be achieved using strictly conventional* terrorist methods? Easily.
*By conventional I mean non-NBC.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay. I (mis)took your post to be addressing everyone on "that side" of the discussion, which is why I was surprised that you only addressed Syn's post. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...that a conventional military offensive "war on terror" will not succeed...
I also disagree with this, because even if you are grossly dissatisfied (as I am) with the way President Bush is conducting this struggle, I do not believe that conventional military offensives are doomed to failure.
Even if by some magical diplomacy, politics, and economics we were able to whisk away all the conditions and circumstances most conducive to terrorism, and able to truly and effectively change hearts and minds of populations sympathetic to terrorism, there would still be quite a lot of people who would have to be killed outright. Oh, sure, we can talk about 'bringing them to justice' and treating terrorism as we would treat assault, but the fact is some people won't be taken alive or without killing lots of cops or soldiers.
Unless the author is suggesting that a completely conventional military effort against terrorism would fail, in which case I say: no one is suggesting nothing but military responses.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, I think you are making a mistake in terminology. "Military" describes a specific subset of force responses and is not equivilent to any use of force.
The proper response to the threats posed by terrorist organizations is a complex one that includes force, but does not make it the cornerstone and primary focus a la the current model. Declaring a "War On Terrorism" is, from the standpoint of what is best for the country, not anywhere near the optimal thing to do, but it does give a nice excuse for the President to claim "wartime powers" in a time when no real threat that justifies these powers exists as well as one of many measures that blur the line between confronting terrorists and the actual war in Iraq.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think you are making a mistake in terminology. "Military" describes a specific subset of force responses and is not equivilent to any use of force.
To an extent I agree with this, though at some point the line becomes a bit blurry. For example, SWAT teams. While they are police officers and engage in police business, their methods are decidedly military.
I'm not prepared to say that "no real threat" exists to justify those sorts of powers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I wnat to expand a bit. When you are confronting an ideology, one of the most important things to do is to forestall the spread of that ideology.
A military approach generally involves killing as many of the other people and detroying their resources. This sort of approach is generally poorly designed to combat ideology, as can be seen by the U.S. military moves leading to bumper crops of recruits for terrorists organizations and actually making us less safe.
There is a role for the use of force in fighting an ideology, but it is a judicious one that goes hand in hand with many non-force methods. Using a direct military or oppressive police model as your primary response is often akin to fighting a fire with gasoline.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm not prepared to say that "no real threat" exists to justify those sorts of powers.
What threat do you see that justifies them?
edit: From what I can tell, the vast majority of the damage done to American interests has come from the actions of the Bush administration.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you'd have to get more specific, Mr. Squicky.
I do feel that terrorism is a serious threat, not to be taken lightly, and not a trivial thing as the OP implies.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I do feel that terrorism is a serious threat, not to be taken lightly, and not a trivial thing as the OP implies.
I don't think anyone is advocating treating it lightly. However, there is a matter of perspective.
What is the real threat of the terrorist organizations that exist? This is something that can actually be assessed, as opposed to the abstract concept of terrorism, which, as far as I can tell, is no threat to us. Is our perception of it (and the reactions that arise from this perception) accurate, or is it wildly, wildly out of proportion to the actual direct threat posed?
It is easy to feel that terrorism is a threat. However, this can often lead to some pretty poor responses. In fact, that is one of the major goals of traditional terrorism, to provoke poor responses from the target population.
If you think that specific terrorist organizations or a particular, real world ideology are threats, that's a very different story.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is just as true for the so-called 'War on Drugs' as it is for the 'War on Terror'. But there haven't been any wars won on purely military grounds, at least none that I can think of. At least one of the following: politics, religion, economics, espionage, diplomacy, or cultural forces always play a role.
The Six Day War in 1967.
And it's the idea that hopelessness lies behind terrorism that has contributed to terrorism. The opposite is true. When you show people that terrorism works, when you give them hope, that's when it gets worse.
So long as people believe they can terrorize others into doing what they want, terrorism will prosper.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa, while I've frequently disagreed with your interpretations on aspects of Israeli history, I've never known you to be this surprisingly ignorant of it.
If there was ever a war which was more affected by successes and failures of espionage and intelligence services than the Six-Day War, I don't know what it is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Well, you'd have to get more specific, Mr. Squicky.
I do feel that terrorism is a serious threat, not to be taken lightly, and not a trivial thing as the OP implies.
Rakeesh, I'm not sure, have you decided to not denote actual threats posed to the US by terrorist groups?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Funny Lisa, I see the 6 Day War as pointing to just the oppositte. During this war the courage, intelligence, and skills of the dedicated Isreali Army defeated the combined might of several surrounding armies.
The result was not the destruction of the ideas that Nassar put out--of Pan-Islamic power begining with the destruction of Isreal. It was the shoving of that ideology underground, where it morphed and grew like some slimey mold, into the PLO, Hamas, and other terrorist groups.
Complete and utter military victory does not destroy ideology.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
Seeing as how it's been less than two hours since the post you're referring to, and seeing as how my only post in that time has been very short and addressing a completely different issue, I think it's pretty unfair of you to be making that particular pseudo-accusation.
quote:I don't think anyone is advocating treating it lightly. However, there is a matter of perspective.
Seeing as how the OP likened terrorism to a less pressing danger than drunk driving, I feel that my interpretation that it suggested taking it lightly was at least a reasonable claim to make.
quote:What is the real threat of the terrorist organizations that exist? This is something that can actually be assessed, as opposed to the abstract concept of terrorism, which, as far as I can tell, is no threat to us. Is our perception of it (and the reactions that arise from this perception) accurate, or is it wildly, wildly out of proportion to the actual direct threat posed?
The threat posed by actual terrorist organizations can be guessed at, yes. But it can only ever be guessed at, even if our foreign intelligence services were much, much better at infiltrating terrorist groups than they are. We will only ever be able to 'feel' a threat from real terrorist organizations. It's not something that can be quantified or calculated reliably from a statistic, such as fatality percentages from front-end impacts on passengers not wearing seat belts.
But perhaps our differences are perceptional. When I think of the 'War on Terror', I don't for a moment feel that the people who came up with the name actually meant us to make war on an abstract concept, no more than I feel that those who came up with the name 'War on Drugs' meant for us to point tanks at bottles of aspirin.
You're welcome to correct me, though, with why the threat posed by real terrorist organizations is only minimal: hopefully without guesswork and references to traffic fatality statistics.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Seeing as how the OP likened terrorism to a less pressing danger than drunk driving, I feel that my interpretation that it suggested taking it lightly was at least a reasonable claim to make.
Where are you getting that from?
quote:You're welcome to correct me, though, with why the threat posed by real terrorist organizations is only minimal
Again, where are you getting the idea that I'm suggesting that it is only minumal?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
My asessment of the threat? The most damaging attack they've been able to pull off was really pretty minor in direct effect.
Since then, they've been unable to approach that scale and logistically, absent them acquiring the devastating type of WMDs, they may be able to pull off an attack of maybe an order of magnitude greater, once.
Do you have anything more substantive besides "We should be afraid."?
---
edit:
I've already implied why I think they termed this the "War On Terror". They are trying to invoke the feeling of wartime, blur the lines between Iraq and fighting terrorists, and assume "wartime" powers far out of proportion to the actual threat posed.
I also detailed why I think this was and is a very poor choice in terms of response.
edit 2: I should add that I think that this was also done because the people involved have a simplistic primary response of military action in response to situations likes this, as opposed to the more complex approach that is warranted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
Where am I getting what from? My opinion about the OP? Well, it makes mention of the fact that 5x more people die each year in the USA from drunk driving, and that chances of another such relatively minor attack are 'incredibly slim'. Those two things, to me, suggest that the threat is deemed a relatively minor one, not worth taking as a very heavy matter.
As for you, though, you're right. I don't have anything to suggest you think it's "minimal". Please change my quote to say, "...threat posed outweighed by the response..."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Those two things, to me, suggest that the threat is deemed a relatively minor one, not worth taking as a very heavy matter.
That a huge stretch and also a big change from your own statement about taking it lightly.
You said that they said it was a less pressing danger than drunk driving. That's not supported by what they actually said, which is that the number of people killed is less than 1/5th of the people who die in drunk-driving accidents. To me, that puts it in perspective. It does not say that terrorism is a less pressing danger than drunk driving.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you're going to continue in suggesting that I am making statements of fact, then I'm not very interested in continuing this discussion.
quote:That a huge stretch and also a big change from your own statement about taking it lightly.
It's not a huge stretch, unless the author is a person who deems drunk driving a relatively major threat. It's also not a big change from my earlier statement about taking it lightly, unless I am mistaken that we take drunk driving in this country very seriously. It's been my observation that, unfortunately, we do not.
I didn't say they said, "It's a less pressing danger..." I said they suggested it. And they did. If someone says to me, "Here are two harmful things. One kills 1/5 what the other one does in a year," even if they don't go on to say, "Therefore the 5x greater killer should be taken more seriously," that's one obvious reasoning I can reach upon reading that. And it's not "a huge stretch" by any means.
Just like when you said, "I'm not sure, have you decided to not denote actual threats posed to the US by terrorist groups?" it wasn't out there for me to point out that you were suggesting I had just decided to ignore your questions.
I'm trying to have a sincere and enjoyable conversation about this, Mr. Squicky. I don't like the games you're playing with me, so please stop.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"Here are two harmful things. One kills 1/5 what the other one does in a year,"
That's not a fair summation of what was said, which was
quote:That, far from "everything changing" on September 11, 2001, despite the tragedy of the event, the real change was the outlook of the U.S., its leadership and its citizenry.
After all, she explains, the deaths directly attributable to 9/11 were less than 1/5 of those who are killed yearly in U.S. drunk-driving accidents; further, that despite public sentiments to the contrary, the likelihood of another attack having a similar level of success post 9/11 are incredibly slim.
The comparison was put in specifically to give perspective, to dispute the idea that "Everything changed" because of one terrorist attack.
You seem to be trying to stake a position that it is you against people saying "Oh, terrorism is no big deal. We don't really need to care that much about it.", but no one is saying that. Even after I said that I wasn't saying that and clarified what was saying, you characterized me as doing so while not addressing what I actually said.
Maybe you are trying to have a sincere conversation, but the one that you seem to want to have is not one that anyone but you is having.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The comparison was put in specifically to give perspective, to dispute the idea that "Everything changed" because of one terrorist attack.
Or in other words, to downplay the idea that everything has changed. Certainly the intent is to say, "Look, it's not as bad as it's being made out to be!"
That's how I get to "taking it lightly".
But I'm done talking about this with you, Mr. Squicky.
quote:I'm not sure, have you decided to not denote actual threats posed to the US by terrorist groups?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Certainly the intent is to say, "Look, it's not as bad as it's being made out to be!"
So, to, you know, put it in perspective, as opposed to say that it is not a big deal or that it is to be taken lightly.
Maybe that is your honest impression. If so, your honest impression is wrong.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Richardson's argument isn't that the lesser death rate of the 9/11 attacks (compared to drunk driving) means that terrorism should not be taken seriously. But she does note that if measures of a certain level were taken to prevent drunk driving (say, mandatory breathalizer tests outside of "popular watering holes"), similar to what have been taken in the name of preventing terrorism, there would probably be significant public dissent- because terrorism, despite the lower cost in human life, is perceived as the greater problem. Also that the increase in long-distance driving to avoid air travel post-9/11 contributed to some 1,000 additional vehicular fatalities; but, more importantly, that disproportionate reactions to terrorism are likely to increase, not decrease, their danger, by granting their perpetrators stature and credibility.
Richardson doesn't dispute the necessity of bringing terrorists to justice, but argues that the concentration of effort should be to minimize the influence and effect of terrorist groups, to innoculate the communities they draw upon against their influence, and to strengthen public recognition that a) terrorism is likely to continue, but b) terrorism is far less dangerous to a typical civilian than any number of things they take for granted in their daily life.
And that these efforts should take a far greater role than the application of force.
Regarding the ability of terrorists to strike, she notes the very real difficulties in producing and deploying nuclear or biological weaponry that would facilitate a large-scale attack, and notes that chemical weaponry was responsible for only 5% of overall casualties in WW I (which saw their heaviest use) and less than 1% of casualties in the war between Iraq and Iran. Further, despite massive resources (a treasury of around $1 billion, 50,000 members, and laboratories better-equipped than some local universities), the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo that was responsible for the 1995 sarin attack on a Tokyo subway that killed 12 people and injured as many as 5,000 only has significant success once despite twelve other attempts. They also killed at least one of their own technicians during attempts to produce the gas, and the "successful" attack was far less so than they had envisioned.
"Accurate estimates are hard to come by," says Richardson, "but even if one were to include nuclear weapons, the numbers killed by all forms of WMD throughout history come to about 400,000." That includes the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Military campaigns have the virtually inevitable effect of creating atrocities (or at least, perceived atrocities, in the eyes of the nations within which they occur), leading to an increased willingness of the community to shelter or turn a blind eye to terrorist communities, and increasing terrorist recruitment. Richardson suggests that the use of force needs to be as specific as possible, and involve a strong understanding of the languange and culture of the terrorists. (She notes, partly from her own background, that the provisional IRA engaged in a violent campaign for over 30 years despite an opposing intelligence service whose members could all actually understand their language.)
Richardson repeatedly states that, in the short term, all terrorist groups are motivated by desire for "The Three 'R's"- Revenge, Renown, and Reaction. Once a terrorist group strikes, they achieve the first for themselves, to a degree. But society can act to limit their achievement of the latter two, and thus harm the perception of terroism as glorious and effective.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
This might seem really out of place and I apologize, but Sterling your summation of Richardson's views sparked a somewhat stupid thought in my head.....has anyone else besides me ever noticed a striking similarity between terrorism-reactions and internet forum trolling?
I mean, a forum troll picks a fight for whatever reason, sometimes for personal revenge; an inexperienced, but typical target reacts to it strongly and feeds the forum troll's fire. He sees it's working, so he keeps at it, and in many cases it appeals to others who jump on the bandwagon and begin to add their own ridiculous remarks. I dunno why I think this is worth posting in this thread; it just said something to me about the human nature of getting attention when I made that connection.
I think right now our government strongly resembles an unwary target of "trolling"; i.e. they react and combat attacks in such a way it gives terrorists and potential terrorists a reason to keep going.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)