[Raj_Copi_Jin]

farmall

I tried to open your link but it bombed out... nevertheless, I will put in my two bits because I have been thinking about this issue for some time.

Like most people, I beleive that war is bad (very bad) but unfortunately it's a reality for human beings. One form of warfare is terrorism and it's a highly effective one at that, especially when it's conducted against foreign armies. In fact, I don't know of too many instances where the terrorists/guerillas/ were not the eventual victors. This is especially true when they fight against armies whose society is on the whole humane and values human life. The terrorists/guerillas tend to use and abuse the limits and the constraints under which those armies tend to operate. Their job is even easier when they fight against democracies where there is freedom of information and freedom of the press. They win not by defeating the armies, they rarely if ever do that. They win by sapping the morale of the parent societies of the armies. They win:

• By attrition, killing one or two soldiers a week ….
• They create an atmosphere of doom and gloom by killing and maiming people randomly
• Because they are allowed to fight by their own rules which state: “Heads they win, tails, the army loses!" In other words, if they kill some soldiers and civilians, they win but if the soldiers kill too many people, some terrorists some collateral damage, then they and their press buddies make it look as if only innocents die, so the army loses.

In most instances, after several years of such chaos, it seems to be easier for most societies to just throw their hands up helplessly and declare “we have had enough”, “we haven’t got the stomach for this”, “Life’s too short…we have no business here….lets get out’a here…”. That’s what happened to the US in Vietnam and that’s what seems to be happening in Iraq…..The terrorists know this, they play on it and they are patient….

Of course, the situation in places like Israel is somewhat different. It’s different because the declared objectives of the terrorists is so intransigent that Israeli society doesn’t have the option of just giving up…..After all, giving up would mean the destruction of their whole society, there is nowhere to retreat. Unlike the American army, Israelis can’t just pack their bags and go home because the terrorists are in hot pursuit. They continue to kill Israelis whether the Israeli army stays in Gaza or whether it gets out of there…It’s a situation that is frustrating for both sides because neither side can win and neither side has any hope of winning, even though the terrorists don’t seem to understand why their methods are not working in Israel, when they are so effective elsewhere….

[MannoFr]

Scattergood

Thanks for your response but let me remind you a couple of the qualifications that I made in my first post. First: I didn't say that terrorism cannot ever be defeated, I said that "I don't know of too many instances where the terrorists/guerillas/ were not the eventual victors". Second: I emphasised that: "This is especially true when they fight against armies whose society is on the whole humane and values human life".

Both your examples are valid instances where terrorism in fact was defeated by (as it happens) British armies and their allies. But let's just look at the tactics that they used. Clearly, against the Boers, the Brits employed non humane tactics and they got away with it because their parent societies were either not informed about the tactics or didn't care or both. Although the Malayan campaign involved more a carrot and stick approach, it was still pretty ruthless and barbaric (one could argue) and most importantly, again, the parent societies were unaware about the details of the campaign at the time. So, those campaigns were successful but unfortunately neither Israel nor the USA seems to be given the same opportunity to shield what happens from the media. Moreover, both societies have vocal constituents who seem to be able to pressure their governments to relent and be lenient or to even give up ....(especially so in the case of the US).

Now, I am not saying that it's impossible to defeat terrorists under these circumstances. I am saying though that it's much...much....much harder! So, what could they do better? I say that they need to do more to infiltrate the terrorist hierarchy, they need to improve their intelligence gathering....they then need to use those to do more covert (pinpoint) operations to target and kill the terrorist leadership....maybe even some of their loved ones, similarly, they need to target the financiers of terrorism. The more pain that they cause to the terrorist hierarchy, the better. But at the same time they also need to give them carrots....and yes, to some extent even face saving ways for them to back off.....I don't think they should be put into a corner, they shouldn't be made to feel like cornered animals who have no way out...

[Fegasderty]

I also don't think that we could ever manage the degree of viciousness that the British often practiced (seeing their native enemies as something less then human)

I'm sorry to say though that in our times, the terrorists seem to have adopted that very same attitude....They treat everyone and anyone, including their own people, at worst, less than human and at best, as pawns....and tools whom they can use to implement their personal view of the world.....nothing else is satisfactory for them... And that just cannot be allowed to stand!!!!

[brraverishhh]

I believe that true proportionality would be effective. While it would be "sinking to their level," at some point, it has to be tried. It is total war, and in total war, the "nicer" side generally loses.

Since Israel is surrounded by a greater population, the proportion may have to change. For example, with the Pal Arabs alone, maybe the proportion could be one. One rocket on Sderot... one rocket on Gaza City. One suicide bomber in a market on Sunday morning... one bombing of a Mosque on Friday night. Terrible, true, but the message will be gotten across. To defeat a monster one must be a monster.

If Hezbollah gets involved, then the proportion must be raised to 4 or 5 or 10 or more, because Hezbollah has the backing of Syria and Iran, and thus Israel is now facing far greater odds. One rocket attack by Hezbollah on Kiryat Shmona... 10 rockets into Hezbollah cities... no warning to leave, no nothing, just fire back, aiming at non-combatants just as much.

I have come to the opinion that it is likely that nothing else will work to delegitimize terrorism other than its return usage.

[PhillipHer]

The voices of extremism in Iraq and amongst the Palestinians are given free reign. Nobody who voices extremist sentiments needs to worry about their life or even their popularity. Inciters in the mosques and schools don't have a worry in the world.....And what about the voices of moderation? We, and more importantly, they don't seem to get too much of that. Why? Because it's pretty risky stuff over there.....individuals who try to steer others towards moderation are labelled as traitors and collaborators and they often pay with their lives!!! So, any wonder then that all we tend to see from over there are triumphalist street parades glorifying terrorism?

Now, let's just suppose that we in the west wouldn't be so hung up on our democratic principles. Just suppose that we recognised that we are involved in a very very ruthless war with some very nasty people and let's just suppose that therefore we would be prepared to adopt a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift that would make life just as dangerous for any petty inciter over there as the danger that the moderates feel.....My question is what effect would that have, in the medium to long term, on the mood of the population? If the extremist inciters would start looking over their shoulders before delivering extremist sermons or political speeches? What would happen if a significant number would consequently tone down their message? I don't know......but I sure know that perhaps it's time to think of including such tactics in the fight against the extremists.....

[LottiFurmann]

1.5 Million, your sarcasm is well taken but no, I don't propose all those draconian measures that you listed. Seriously though, I do understand your concern that what I proposed could become the slippery slope, nevertheless, I don't think that we should dismiss such tactics out of hand. Perhaps a way to avoid slippery slopes is by carefully debating the pros and cons of any such new tactics, by being honest with ourselves, by monitoring outcomes and revising our tactics as necessary, honestly and by avoiding unnecessary recriminations (especially politically motivated ones for point scoring).

I know there are many cons to my idea but here is an obvious pro that I can think of, right of the top of my head: It might just level the playing field for extremists and moderates. Right now, the moderates have been squeezed out while the extremists are clearly the ones who are given a free run to set the agenda for their hapeless misguided people.....

[tgs]

The link checks good, BTW. Try again if no workee earlier.

Sorry....I still don't have luck with it.....it's probably the setting of my Browser .....