FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » WAR ON TERROR: Rumsfeld's analysis

   
Author Topic: WAR ON TERROR: Rumsfeld's analysis
Shlomo
Member
Member # 1912

 - posted      Profile for Shlomo   Email Shlomo         Edit/Delete Post 
This quote can be found in the New York Times story about Rumsfeld not asking Bangledesh for troops. You need to register to get to the Times story online, so no link is provided. For more info, you can go to this link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&ncid=731&e=10&u=/ap/20040605/ap_on_re_as/rumsfeld_bangladesh


quote:

Earlier on Saturday, at the conference on Asian security, Mr. Rumsfeld told defense officials and experts gathered by the International Institute for Strategic Studies that the United States and its Allies -- for all their firepower and intelligence techiniques -- did not have an effective strategy to crush terrorism at its source.
Mr. Rumsfeld said that an American-led campaign must extend beyond arrests and warfare to a political effort that stems from the development of recruits in the Muslim world.
"If the schools that are teaching young folks are teaching them terror" instead of mathematics, Mr. Rumsfeld said, the supply of militants will never end. "We do not have a coherent approach to this," he said.


Now, compare this to MY analysis.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes Shlomo, the only difference between the two opinions is that you see in it a reason to think less of the administration and their handling of things, whereas Mr. Rumsfeld no doubt believes that this is a problem that, in retrospect, any administration would've been facing at this point.

The harsh reality has indeed come home to roost.

And somehow, those of us who saw this from the outset (like yourself) (and me) are still left on the outside going "well, why didn't you think of that before you blew through 200 billion dollars and messed up any chance of an eventual diplomatic solution.

Ah well, the bliss of going "I told you so" just doesn't make up for the fact that our administration is populated by people who don't represent my way of thinking. That I've been vindicated (largely) in my distrust of them doesn't make me feel any better. You?

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kerinin
Member
Member # 4860

 - posted      Profile for kerinin           Edit/Delete Post 
i think this is wonderful. loooooong overdue obviously but wonderful. it would be nice if this sentiment would become policy rather than a sound byte from the other side of the world...
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mabus
Member
Member # 6320

 - posted      Profile for Mabus   Email Mabus         Edit/Delete Post 
As usual, I repeat my caveat that there is no "coherent approach to this". Short of taking over every Muslim country and raising the kids ourselves (as if that absurd suggestion were possible) or caving in to every ridiculous demand made of us, we cannot stop some kids from being raised to hate us.

So, plan b, anyone?

Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
A very small some is controllable: whackos will be exposed and/or handled by many members of the vastly overwhelming majority.

A large some is much more difficult: the whackos find camouflage within and are sometimes sheltered by a non-violent but sympathetic large some. And every member of even a large supermajority needs to tread carefully lest sympathizers take revenge: even petty acts of retaliatory disapproval repeated many times can cause great hardship.

Chest-thumping and otherwise going out of ones way to be rude/impolitic merely grows that very small some into a large some.

[ June 06, 2004, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post 
Poltical problems to political issues, thats well.. always been spoken about. We had to try a lot of the same tactics in Iraq. The main problem is you have to understand most of these insurgents are the poor, unemployed etc. The fact is we would have to make the whole Middle East economically viable. There are a few issues with this. That and the fact that a strong Iraq would have simply started thumping its chest at Iran etc.

That and the fact is that even when we weren't bombing the bejesus out of the middle east and what not they weren't exactly major fans of ours. That and the source of most of the Mujhadeen is from the original Soviet/Afghani conflit. A conflit where we supported the Islamic insurgents there. Talk about coming back to bite you huh. The thing is the whole issue over there, the mistrust of westerners is one that goes back centuries and centuries. They are a culture that isn't as dominant as they used to be. They aren't flourishing as they did in their past, this generally does nothing but cause disent in those on the bottom. If you pile enough rocks on the heap someone on the bottom is going to get rather irritated.

You want to honestly know the fact, even though I'm a soldier, and I had no problems with going there, I am honestly not a big supported of the whole thing. In all honesty I think we should have contributed more to the invasion of afghanistan and for the most part not bothered with Iraq. Yes a bunch of people would be suffering under his reign at the moment, but you should solve one problem at a time for the most part. That and we still have a military thats very geared for a conventional warfare. You don't liberate a nation and then patrol its streets in tanks. Sorry thats a bit overboard, and person thats being repressed by a regime isn't going to exactly see armored vehicles in there streets as liberation. Thats simply how it goes.

That and you go by the rule that for the most part dissatisfied people for the most part are cruel. So therefore any soldier at war for the most part becomes crueler over time. Do you think its going to be much better when the brothers I went there with go back again? Do you think they are going to be kinder from reading the news? No lets see the more of our friends that die the friendlier we become. I personally think that its a soldiers duty to face pain and consequences for his duty. Not that I want us too.. not that I want to see my brothers suffer anything. Its simply what a warrior should do. I should be willing to accept death before any civilian, before any woman or child.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marlozhan
Member
Member # 2422

 - posted      Profile for Marlozhan   Email Marlozhan         Edit/Delete Post 
Trying to change the terrorists' views of us by lending aid, etc. will never change their views of us. The Muslim fundamentalist terrorists will only change when our nation is either eliminated or wholly converted to Muslim. I am not saying this is how the mainstream Muslim population feels, but it is exactly what is taught among the extremists. Those are the only two options for them: total conversion or elimination.

And for once, besides any mistakes that have been made by anyone in the administration, can someone mention all of the good that has been accomplished in Iraq. I am not minimizing any problems over there, but surely we have a right to also know about the millions of people now able to live better lives? I am tired of the one-sideness of the information on Irag we receive.

Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
A very small some is controllable: whackos will be exposed and/or handled by many members of the vastly overwhelming majority.

A large some is much more difficult: the whackos find camouflage within and are sometimes sheltered by a non-violent but sympathetic large some.

Chest-thumping and otherwise going out of ones way to be rude/impolitic merely grows that very small some into a large some.

Wow, aspectre: that's the tightest nutshell I've seen in some time. Awesome.

[ June 07, 2004, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kerinin
Member
Member # 4860

 - posted      Profile for kerinin           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Trying to change the terrorists' views of us by lending aid, etc. will never change their views of us

i don't think anyone is seriously proposing that we bother trying to change terrorists views of us, and certainly not by lending aid or changing our foreign policy. i think people are saying that by doing these things we might stem the conversion of ordinary non-radical muslims into suicide-bombing terrorists. it seems clear that terrorists are gaining clout in the middle east, which means that something is causing people to change how they feel about the west. either this is inevitable due to cultural differences or it is the result of actions which can be changed in order to promote peaceful coexistence. i think the argument that terrorists hate us and there's nothing we can do about it is often used as a euphamism for the sentiment that muslims hate christians and there's nothing we can do about it (except exterminate them).

if peaceful coexistence is possible it is our responsibility (as the world superpower) to take the steps necessary to ensure it. the discussion of how to "win the war on terror" should not be focused on the terrorists, it should be focused on the majority of the muslim world that doesn't support terrorism, and how to stop the numbers of these people from being further reduced.

[ June 07, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: kerinin ]

Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kerinin
Member
Member # 4860

 - posted      Profile for kerinin           Edit/Delete Post 
is it possible that a sentiment can be so powerful that it can overpower the myriad sources of evidence that suggest the sentiment is doomed? Our approach to terrorism is practically identical to what our approach to povert and drug use has been; to declare "war" on it and start trying to eliminate the effects of the problem. The war on poverty never addressed the structural causes of economic inequality, and to think that the issue could be solved through food stamps and welfare has proven to be as ignorant as it sounds. The war on drugs never addressed the cultural causes of drug use and has contented itself to incarcerate users. In both cases the problem still exists; if anything they've gotten worse. Yet here we are once again declaring "war" on an idea (some might argue a social condition), with no exit strategy and truthfully, no real understanding of who the enemy is.

is this laziness, stupidity, forgetfulness, or do we really think that this is the way to "eliminate" terrorism?

Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2