[Lillie_Steins]

Treat terrorists like criminals, not like armies.

How does that work if they operate from sanctuaries like the tribal lands of Western Pakistan and/or entire territoritories that they control where the entire population supports them, like in Gaza and South Lebanon?

[Lillie_Steins]

The study said if they act like an army to treat them like an army. But that is the exception rather than the rule. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are acting like an army. And you will note I strongly support the actions of both American and Pakistani troops in those areas, because I believe they can be effective. But we don't for example take out city blocks in Hamburg because there are some Al Qaida living there. Any military action is more likely to have civilian casualties. And those casualties are being used as recruitment posters for the enemy.

And as I mentioned before, if the enemy organizes as an army, the final result even in defeat will be some sort of political solution. Criminals don't gain political ground for being sent to prison for the real crimes they commit.

Hezbollah is an army and should be taken out, maybe then the people of Lebanon will not shelter terrorists.

[LottiFurmann]

But we don't for example take out city blocks in Hamburg because there are some Al Qaida living there.

Of course you don't, not in Hamburg, because the population of Hamburg don't support Al Qaida so you do treat them like criminals in Hamburg.

However, I didn't give you Hamburg as an example when I asked you my question. I gave you the Western provinces of Pakistan as my example. And we both know how far a police unit would get if they would try to capture Al Quaida operatives in those areas. They would be lucky not to be lynched by the local population who are well armed and who offer unreserved sanctuary to those terrorists. Therefore as you too now seem to agree that in such situations, terrorists cannot be treated as criminals. The same applies to South Lebanon and Gaza! Obviously in those places it's outright war between two armed sides and naturally, as in all wars, civilians inevitably get hurt and obviously the weaker side's civilians tend to get hurt more, no matter how much care is taken to avoid civilian casualties especially if the terrorists deliberately use their own civilians as shields.

Last but not least, one cannot claim moral equivalence between civilian casualties who get hurt as a by-product of fighting between two armed forces (an army and terrorist operatives operating from within a local sanctuary) and civilians who are deliberately sought out and are specifically targeted to be murdered by armed terrorists. I think you know what I mean andak...

[HedgeYourBets]

I thought my answer was clear. I support all actions against Afghanistan and West Pakistan by America and Pakistan. I cheered when the Pakistani troops went into Waziristan. So, if I wasn't clear about that, that is my response.

Fair enough but let me ask you: Do you or don't you by the same token agree with Israel's similar responses to attacks from Gaza and South Lebanon? If yes, our discussion is finished because we are in agreement. However, If you don't agree, then please explain why not and tell me why Israel is not entitled to respond the same way as America responds to Al Qaida?

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? Answers to this question have enormous implications for counterterrorism efforts. The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members. Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory. This has significant implications for dealing with al Qa’ida and suggests fundamentally rethinking post–September 11 U.S. counterterrorism strategy.

The ending of most terrorist groups requires a range of policy instruments, such as careful police and intelligence work, military force, political negotiations, and economic sanctions. Yet policy makers need to understand where to prioritize their efforts with limited resources and attention. Following an examination of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, we found that a transition to the political process is the most common way in which terrorist groups ended (43 percent). The possibility of a political solution is inversely linked to the breadth of terrorist goals. Most terrorist groups that end because of politics seek narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals of a terrorist organization, the more likely it can achieve them without violent action—and the more likely the government and terrorist group may be able to reach a negotiated settlement.

Against terrorist groups that cannot or will not make a transition to nonviolence, policing is likely to be the most effective strategy (40 percent). Police and intelligence services have better training and xiv How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida information to penetrate and disrupt terrorist organizations than do such institutions as the military. They are the primary arm of the government focused on internal security matters. Local police and intelligence agencies usually have a permanent presence in cities, towns, and villages; a better understanding of the threat environment in these areas; and better human intelligence.

Other reasons are less common. For example, in 10 percent of the cases, terrorist groups ended because their goals were achieved, and military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of the cases. Militaries tended to be most effective when used against terrorist groups engaged in an insurgency in which the groups were large, well armed, and well organized. Insurgent groups have been among the most capable and lethal terrorist groups, and military force has usually been a necessary component in such cases. Against most terrorist groups, however, military force is usually too blunt an instrument.

Military tools have increased in precision and lethality, especially with the growing use of precision standoff weapons and imagery to monitor terrorist movement. But even precision weapons have been of limited use against terrorist groups. The use of substantial U.S. military power against terrorist groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians.


Our quantitative analysis looked at groups that have ended since 1968 or are still active. It yielded several other interesting findings:

Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups. Approximately 62 percent of all terrorist groups have ended since 1968, but only 32 percent of religious terrorist groups have ended.

Religious groups rarely achieve their objectives. No religious group that has ended achieved victory since 1968.

Size is a significant determinant of a group’s fate. Big groups of more than 10,000 members have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare when groups are smaller than 1,000 members.

There is no statistical correlation between the duration of a terrorist group and ideological motivation, economic conditions, regime type, or the breadth of terrorist goals. But there appears to be some correlation between the size of a terrorist group and duration:

Larger groups tend to last longer than smaller groups. When a terrorist group becomes involved in an insurgency, it does not end easily. Nearly 50 percent of the time, groups ended by negotiating a settlement with the government; 25 percent of the time, they achieved victory; and 19 percent of the time, military forces defeated them.

Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are much more likely to be left-wing or nationalist and much less likely to be motivated by religion.

Implications for al Qa’ida
What does this mean for counterterrorism efforts against al Qa’ida? After September 11, 2001, the U.S. strategy against al Qa’ida centered on the use of military force. Indeed, U.S. policymakers and key national-security documents referred to operations against al Qa’ida as the war on terrorism. Other instruments were also used, such as cutting off terrorist financing, providing foreign assistance, engaging in diplomacy, and sharing information with foreign governments. But military force was the primary instrument.

The evidence by 2008 suggested that the U.S. strategy was not successful in undermining al Qa’ida’s capabilities. Our assessment concludes that al Qa’ida remained a strong and competent organization.

Its goals were the same: uniting Muslims to fight the United States and its allies (the far enemy) and overthrowing western-friendly regimes in the Middle East (the near enemy) to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate.

Al Qa’ida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history. These attacks spanned Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Al Qa’ida’s modus operandi also evolved and included a repertoire of more-sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and a growing use of suicide attacks. Its organizational structure evolved, making it a more dangerous enemy.

This included a bottom-up approach (encouraging independent action How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida from low-level operatives) and a top-down one (issuing strategy and operations from a central hub in Pakistan).

Ending the “War” on Terror
Al Qa’ida’s resurgence should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy. Based on our analysis of how terrorist groups end, a political solution is not possible. Since al Qa’ida’s goal remains the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, there is little reason to expect that a negotiated settlement with governments in the Middle East is possible. A more effective approach would be adopting a twofront strategy.

First, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts. In Europe, North America, North Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, al Qa’ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This would require careful work abroad from such organizations as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies. Second, military force, though not necessarily U.S. soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al Qa’ida is involved in an insurgency. 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. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all. The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment.

[Big A]

A key part of this strategy should include ending the notion of a war on terrorism and replacing it with such concepts as counterterrorism, which most governments with significant terrorist threats use. The British government, among others, has already taken this step and abjured the phrase war on terror. The phrase raises public expectations—both in the United States and elsewhere—that there is a battlefield solution to the problem of terrorism. It also encourages others abroad to respond by conducting a jihad (or holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors. Our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism. Military force usually has the opposite effect from what is intended: It is often overused, alienates the local population by its heavy-handed nature, and provides a window of opportunity for terrorist-group recruitment. This strategy should also include rebalancing U.S. resources and attention on police and intelligence work. It also means increasing budgets at the CIA, U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. Department of State and scaling back the U.S. Department of Defense’s focus and resources on counterterrorism. U.S. special operations forces will remain critical, as will U.S. military operations to counter terrorist groups involved in insurgencies.

There is reason to be hopeful. Our analysis concludes that al Qa’ida’s probability of success in actually overthrowing any government is close to zero. Out of all the religious groups that ended since 1968, none ended by achieving victory. Al Qa’ida has virtually unachievable objectives in trying to overthrow multiple regimes in the Middle East. While Osama bin Laden enjoys some popular support in much of the Muslim world, this support does not translate into the mass support of the sort that other organizations enjoy, such as Hizballah in Lebanon. This is not surprising, since there are few al Qa’ida socialwelfare services, hospitals, or clinics (a problem of which al Qa’ida’s leaders are aware). In addition, al Qa’ida continues to expand its list of enemies. It now includes all Middle Eastern governments, Muslims who do not share al Qa’ida’s views, western governments, Asian governments (including those of Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan), the United Nations, and international nongovernmental organizations. Making a world of enemies and having unachievable objectives is not a winning strategy.

The full PDF is here

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741/

[NeroASERCH]

Yes, Hizbollah, as their name reflects is acting as a conventional army. They are also liable for war crimes they commit as a conventional army.

I thought Hizbollah meant "party of G-d". Does with word Hizb have military connotations?