Ending Terrorist Movements

Ending Terrorist Movements

 

Did George W. Bush ever really try to end the Al Qaida movement, or was this really just another excuse to get people to dig deep into their pockets for money to sink into Republican Party corporate interests as well as to take over two new colonies in the Middle East?  That is a question that has been on many people’s minds over the years, and such literature and movies as The Zeitgeist Movie, www.zeitgeist.com, suggest that 9/11 itself was the product of the Bush administration.  Don’t the Republicans put themselves out there to be great warriors and the best leaders in times of war?  Don’t people tend to vote Republican instead of Democratic during such times?  Wasn’t that, arguably, a great justification to invade two oil rich nations, Iran and Iraq?  If we had not been tied down in Iraq because of wanting to stay to control the people and protect the oil with US taxpayer dollars, don’t you think that we would be in Iran right about now after an alleged Iranian bombing of the Superbowl of the Liberty Bell? 

 

Many people suspected that W wanted war “day one” going into office.  Then, lo and behold, about as quickly as a major power grab in the Middle East could be planned, America was plagued by the largest terrorist attack on American soil of all times.  Wasn’t that convenient or inconvenient depending upon your perspective?  It seems like it was only the next day later that we were in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I can’t seem to get answers to FOIA requests that I sent to the government years ago.  I wanted information, and I believe that the American people already paid for it with their lives on 9/11 and their taxes, but what did I get?  Absolutely nothing!

 

If you want information go to Yahoo!, if you want the Republican Party line that never seems to get the results that the people demand, go to the Bush administration.  If you ask them for information, please expect to have to sue them in court and to try a round of Russian Roulette with all the Bush appointed judges to even get a fair hearing.

 

A recent article from Yahoo! talks about how to actually win a war on terror, if that is what somebody is actually trying to do.  If you want to be terror, I suggest that you might launch a covert war against your own nation and simply prevent the US Army from ending it.

 

The study examined how terrorist groups since 1968 have ended, and found that only seven percent were defeated militarily.

 

Most were neutralized either through political settlements (43 percent), or through the use of police and intelligence forces (40 percent) to disrupt and capture or kill leaders.

 

"Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory," the report said.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080729/wl_asia_afp/usattacksafghanistanmilitarystudy_080729045820

 

You see, it appears that almost never did starting a war ever really solve anything, much less end a terrorist movement.  It seems that starting wars is just what brutal dictators do around the globe when they are dissatisfied with the amount of power, money, or just general control that they have in other people’s lives.  Some people just seem to really like putting a big lump on the mood of other people such as the second Bush campaign or the Ghouliani campaign.  If somebody just pitches terror and how we can’t do anything about it other than live in fear of it and continue to raze and control other nations as well as vote for them, I am calling their campaign “very suspect” as well as the candidate.  What would have been the effect of having roughly one trillion dollars in Third World people just hired to go everywhere on the planet for seven years have been other than a lot more satisfaction for Amerika and the Third World even if  we didn’t find Usama and secure the premisis!  Amerika used to really like helping people around the globe with charity and foreign aid before most of that became just beating them up both before and after they were captured and even more controlled.

 

So, what does this particular report suggest if we want to end this terrorist war of oppression?

 

The United States should shift strategy against Al-Qaeda from the current heavy reliance on military force to more effective use of police and intelligence work, a study released Tuesday concluded.

 

The study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that often does work for the US military, also urged the United States to drop the "war on terror" label.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080729/wl_asia_afp/usattacksafghanistanmilitarystudy_080729045820

 

I never really liked the name “War on Terror.”  I thought that sounded like an invitation for sloppy police work as well as just inciting the American public to feel afraid as long as it continues.  If we are fighting terror, shouldn’t we be afraid that something is going to happen to us?  Those terrorists are probably fighting back, and they fight with terror.  But, Amerika used to have the technologies of hope and valor before we traded those in for never-ending conflict.  Thirdly, I suggest that using one term to tie together a whole bunch of different people really does some disservice to the world.  When the East thinks of the West, they think of a horrible, pale, white man who ships cocaine into the inner cities to black babies and who just crushes nations in the Middle East for a few extra coins in the corner of his room. 

 

On the other hand, when the West thinks of the East, people just picture Usama Bin Ladin killing innocent women and children in the World Trade Centers and his henchmen slowly sawing off heads.  Because Iran is also called by the Bush administration a part of the “Axis of Evil,” they are obviously associated with this same image.  I suggest not.  There are a whole bunch of different nations, political parties, sub-national groups, ethnic groups, religious groups and individuals in the Middle East.  This just makes both sides look evil to each other, and it is difficult to tell which side is more evil.  But, it is not just one big war unless you buy into the picture that Bush and Usama give you, both telling you that they will save you from the other one.  Which one has one it so far?  When were the going to do it?  They are just really old and ought to get cracking if they want to finish this thing before they fall over dead from old age or their courageous combat on the field of battle!

 

"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy," it said.

 

It argued that a US strategy centered primarily on the use of military force has not worked, pointing to al-Qaeda's resurgence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks.

 

Policing and intelligence "should be the backbone of US efforts," it said. Police and intelligence agencies were better suited for penetrating terrorist groups and tracking down terrorist leaders, it said.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080729/wl_asia_afp/usattacksafghanistanmilitarystudy_080729045820

 

Well, I suggest the same approach.  We tried just invading countries left and right and waiting for Usama Bin Ladin to come to us for seven years now, and I think that it might be time to try going to his house.  That is highly sarcastic, and I suggest that it was not the Bush policy to ever catch him!  It was the Bush policy to capture Afghanistan and Iraq and to continue to control their leadership, population, money supply, industry, and whatever else can be controlled.  It was just another Bush control game!

 

"Second, military force, though not necessarily US soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al-Qaeda is involved in an insurgency," it said.

 

"Local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate than the United States has, and they have a better understanding of the operating environment, even if they need to develop the capacity to deal with insurgent groups over the long run," it said.

 

While the US military can play a critical role in building up the capacity of local forces, it should "generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the study said.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080729/wl_asia_afp/usattacksafghanistanmilitarystudy_080729045820

 

That is another good point, and one that is well taken.  I think that invading two nations in the Middle East was just a big signal flare to draw anybody with a piece of dynamite and a problem in their life to Iraq or Afghanistan to die for the love of Allah instead of living for it.  We have seen the result of 61 years of the Israeli occupation of Palesrael, a whole lot of dead bodies, wasted money, hurt feelings, and time lost that could have been spent with more pleasant affairs.  One thing appears clear: occupied territories just do not seem to be well received in the Middle East, and we learned that from watching the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan not all that long ago.  That was my first image when I heard that we were going to invade Afghanistan, one of a long struggle to maintain control of a piece of land where the indigenous people wanted other leadership that even bruised a superpower like the Soviet Union.  Then, we had to go and try the exact same thing after allegedly training, financing, and equipping the same people that we are now fighting.

 

However, on the near temporal horizon, there is a very bright opportunity for a political solution for Palesrael as well as one for Iraq.  Bush might not be willing to admit that nobody ever wins in a war, but I will.  War is much a matter of how badly the two or more sides lose, and rarely do the leaders even see the field of battle other than under heavy guard for some photo ops to give  a good picture to the media.  A good picture?  Whatever happened to a good war or no war at all?  Some dictators just seem to like to get their control freak on and leave other people to pay the piper!

 

Then again, why go with the roughly 8 out of 10 odds of being successful with the stated police and military agenda when you could go with two whole new colonies?