[Winstonm]

Quote

Yes that frames the debate.

If terriosts kill 3000+ people in a few hours is it best to respond with diplomacy and more aid money.

You'll have to forgive, Mike. He has a fetish for straw.

[Winstonm]

As I know Mike will not bother to actually look it up and read it, I am posting the conclusions of the Rand Corporation Study: How Terrorist Groups End.

Quote

The authors compiled and analyzed a data set of all terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, drawn from a terrorism-incident database that RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism jointly oversee. The authors used that data to identify the primary reason for the end of groups and to statistically analyze how economic conditions, regime type, size, ideology, and group goals affected their survival. They then conducted comparative case studies of specific terrorist groups to understand how they ended.

Of the 648 groups that were active at some point between 1968 and 2006, a total of 268 ended during that period. Another 136 groups splintered, and 244 remained active. As depicted in the figure, the authors found that most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments.

[NickRW]

Winstonm, on Jul 1 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

As I know Mike will not bother to actually look it up and read it, I am posting the conclusions of the Rand Corporation Study: How Terrorist Groups End.

Quote

The authors compiled and analyzed a data set of all terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, drawn from a terrorism-incident database that RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism jointly oversee. The authors used that data to identify the primary reason for the end of groups and to statistically analyze how economic conditions, regime type, size, ideology, and group goals affected their survival. They then conducted comparative case studies of specific terrorist groups to understand how they ended.

Of the 648 groups that were active at some point between 1968 and 2006, a total of 268 ended during that period. Another 136 groups splintered, and 244 remained active. As depicted in the figure, the authors found that most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments.

Er - I kind of agree with you - but - statistics can be used to skew things. 7% were put out of business by the military and 40% were put out of business by the police and so on = 47% (nearly half) were put out of business by a non namby pamby solution. Probably the military were not used in many of these situations either (if "groups" means what I imagine it does).

On top of that, there doesn't seem to be much room for a real political solution at this time (given the apparent ideals of the US administration as compared with the Taliban) - though we probably shouldn't be in such a position in the first place.

Not really saying you're right - or wrong - just that it is a can of worms.

Nick

[NickRW]

You see, a real cynic would say that the drug production "problem" in Afghanistan has got worse since we got involved - and who imports these drugs? We do.

Problem? What problem!

[Winstonm]

Quote

Not really saying you're right - or wrong - just that it is a can of worms.

This is certainly true. But in my opinion the biggest mistake we make is falling prey to the misguided simplification that terrorists are evildoers.

Terrorists are not simply mad dogs. Terrorist organizations are trying to force a change. We need to understand that once we strip away their tactics, they have what to them is a legitimate complaint - and if we are reasonable, we must admit that there is some degree of legitimacy to their complaints.

That to me explains why so many of these groups (43%) ended by political means and not by force.

[mike777]

I agree,....many here in usa see terrorists as evil doers......he makes his point

[mike777]

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments. [/QUOTE]

---------------



so you advocate coming up with a new plan..ok what is it......after ten years....of war...." come up with....method..."
----------------------

We all, we all agree the war is a mess and very hard......

---------------


I think i posted years ago in the forum.... in the mess of Iraq....I hope the surge works..I pray it works.....


Same here......

-------------



Winston has a plan I guess....whatever....I hope/pray it works

taking pot shots at his plan after ten years or any plan...is novice.....

----------------


I just hope we can be safe.....ok....sort of safe.....

sidenote...some advocate as police action

rape....murder....etc....never win.....we just do our best.....

I hate to see terror added to this list.......never win..just do our best.....

[helene_t]

NickRW, on Jul 1 2010, 02:34 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 1 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

..... I am posting the conclusions of the Rand Corporation Study: How Terrorist Groups End.

Quote

.....most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments.

Er - I kind of agree with you - but - statistics can be used to skew things. 7% were put out of business by the military and 40% were put out of business by the police and so on = 47% (nearly half) were put out of business by a non namby pamby solution. Probably the military were not used in many of these situations either (if "groups" means what I imagine it does).

On top of that, there doesn't seem to be much room for a real political solution at this time (given the apparent ideals of the US administration as compared with the Taliban) - though we probably shouldn't be in such a position in the first place.

Yeah, although the conclusion may be right these statistics don't really support it.

Maybe more useful to look at how often a particular strategy (say, military action) was successful as a proportion of the number of cases in which that strategy was employed.

But you would need to look at individual cases. Are there any cases that are similar to Afghanistan?

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Jul 1 2010, 11:38 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 1 2010, 02:34 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 1 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

..... I am posting the conclusions of the Rand Corporation Study: How Terrorist Groups End.

Quote

.....most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

My recommendation is simple - quit acting like chest-pounding 7 percenters and come up with a comprehensive method to address terrorism that is not based on Militry force and puppet governments.

Er - I kind of agree with you - but - statistics can be used to skew things. 7% were put out of business by the military and 40% were put out of business by the police and so on = 47% (nearly half) were put out of business by a non namby pamby solution. Probably the military were not used in many of these situations either (if "groups" means what I imagine it does).

On top of that, there doesn't seem to be much room for a real political solution at this time (given the apparent ideals of the US administration as compared with the Taliban) - though we probably shouldn't be in such a position in the first place.

Yeah, although the conclusion may be right these statistics don't really support it.

Maybe more useful to look at how often a particular strategy (say, military action) was successful as a proportion of the number of cases in which that strategy was employed.

But you would need to look at individual cases. Are there any cases that are similar to Afghanistan?

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan comes to mind, as does
the British invasion of Afghanistan
various Indian invasions of Afghanistan

If we wanted to extend the theme, we could work our way back to the Macedonian invasion of Afghanistan...

On a more serious note:

I'm trying to think of any example where an outside military presence was able to use force to impose a stable, centralized government that didn't involve something roughly akin to genocide.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

I'm trying to think of any example where an outside military presence was able to use force to impose a stable, cetralized government that didn't involve something roughly akin to genocide.

The U.S. invasion of Panama would be an example I think.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Jul 1 2010, 03:22 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

I'm trying to think of any example where an outside military presence was able to use force to impose a stable, cetralized government that didn't involve something roughly akin to genocide.

The U.S. invasion of Panama would be an example I think.

In the case of Panama, we toppled an autocratic leader and replaced him with another government more to our liking.

The example I am looking for is one in which

1. There was no centralized government
2. Military occupation by an outside force
3. The existing people suddenly reap the benefits of democracy (what have you)

There many people some examples where this actually happened... The British, the French, or the Romans might have pulled something like this during the weird old days.

If they did, then I suspect that overwhelming military superiority (and a willingness to massacre) were necessary preconditions.

[hotShot]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2010, 01:31 PM, said:

The example I am looking for is one in which

1. There was no centralized government
2. Military occupation by an outside force
3. The existing people suddenly reap the benefits of democracy (what have you)

There many people some examples where this actually happened... The British, the French, or the Romans might have pulled something like this during the weird old days.

If they did, then I suspect that overwhelming military superiority (and a willingness to massacre) were necessary preconditions.

Would you accept the Church as a state and implementing a centralized religion instead of democracy?

Implementing Christian belief with the sword was quite successful in Europe around the year 1000.

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on Jul 1 2010, 03:41 PM, said:

Would you accept the Church as a state and implementing a centralized religion instead of democracy?

Implementing Christian belief with the sword was quite successful in Europe around the year 1000.

That is a really interesting counter example

I'm not sure if I buy it...

How does one measure "Religious Conversion"? its all fine and dandy for Olav Tryggvason to declare that Norway is now a Christian country. However, did this actually change anyone's behavior?

My impression is that most instances of mass conversion were assimilationist in nature, in which the new religion incorporated many elements of the old. Saturnalia turns into Christmas. Brigid becomes St Bridgid.

[NickRW]

I think the Roman invasions were reasonable counter examples - BUT - they went there essentially to exploit - they were there for keeps - they were reasonably friendly to the natives so long as you wanted to do business and otherwise keep your mouth shut - they had significant numbers in the occupying forces and were quite happy to send more if needed and to recruit whoever to their army in order to ensure the numbers - they were quite happy to kill, in numbers, if they thought it would do their side some good - and they were (sometimes) not that discriminating who they killed (no laser guided missiles sent to military targets only!)

Afghanistan is different in that there isn't much there to exploit - they're just a nuisance - more akin to the Germanic tribes that gave the Romans so much grief.

The so called "British Empire" also brought quite a lot of "democracy" to the world - but make no mistake the British Navy was, to a significant degree, a bunch of mercenaries under a state flag and the British were also there for the long term - to exploit. Other European powers, at the same sort of time, had similar effects in the other parts of the world that the British didn't get to first - mainly Spain, France and to some extent the Netherlands.

[PassedOut]

NickRW, on Jul 1 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

Afghanistan is different in that there isn't much there to exploit - they're just a nuisance - more akin to the Germanic tribes that gave the Romans so much grief.

Afghans say US team found huge potential mineral wealth

Quote

Afghanistan may have more than a trillion dollars worth of untapped mineral deposits, a spokesman for the ministry of mines has suggested.

...

The details of a US Geological Service survey of the country were released in 2007. The US assessment of the worth of the deposits was completed in December last year.

No doubt this factors into the "war of necessity" calculation.

[NickRW]

PassedOut, on Jul 1 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 1 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

Afghanistan is different in that there isn't much there to exploit - they're just a nuisance - more akin to the Germanic tribes that gave the Romans so much grief.

Afghans say US team found huge potential mineral wealth

Quote

Afghanistan may have more than a trillion dollars worth of untapped mineral deposits, a spokesman for the ministry of mines has suggested.

...

The details of a US Geological Service survey of the country were released in 2007. The US assessment of the worth of the deposits was completed in December last year.

No doubt this factors into the "war of necessity" calculation.

Well, if that's true, lets stop pussy footing about with this "war against terror" that nobody with any intelligence ever believed in the first place and set up shop. I hate political correctness.

[helene_t]

Isn't the "war of necessity" slogan older than the discovery of the minerals?

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on Jul 1 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

Isn't the "war of necessity" slogan older than the discovery of the minerals?

For sure. I'm thinking of the post-2007 formulation.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jul 1 2010, 01:29 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 1 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

Isn't the "war of necessity" slogan older than the discovery of the minerals?

For sure. I'm thinking of the post-2007 formulation.

well we're gonna need pretty much all those minerals since the path we're on is unsustainable

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jul 1 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

well we're gonna need pretty much all those minerals since the path we're on is unsustainable

It certainly is, but I'm not sure the Afghanistan minerals will help.