Can America finish terrorism alone ?

[aneeshm]

Watching the news today , I just had to post this .

How many here actually believe that America can go against terrorists alone ? How many people think that war after war after war is the solution to the terrorism menace .

Living in India , terrorism is nothing new . You felt it two years ago . I knew it from birth . On the 25th of August , two blasts killed more than a hundred people in the city of Mumbai . On the 7th of Sept. , a car bomb killed seven people in Srinagar . Most people here must not even have heard of this .

Such things keep happening , and no-one pays any attention . Do the American people seriously think they can finish terrorists just by army operations wherever and whenever they so choose ? We learnt long ago that you cannot do it that way . We are still trying , though , and without much success .

In my opinion , no nation , not even the sole superpower , can do this alone . You cannot enlist support by invading anyone . Only through a global consensus of all affected nations , not a Coalition of the Willing (or America's puppets) , can this be contained . And the faster Americans realize this , the better for them and the lives of theis troops .

Again , I ask , how many here feel America can do this alone ?

[Harry Seldon]

No. We shouldn't have even tried. Damn Dubbya! Without the UN or at least a coalition this venture is doomed to failure.

[Drogue]

I agree with aneeshm, I think no nation can do it alone. But I also question whether a coalition of all affected nations could. That could do something, but I don't think we will ever get rid or terrorism entirely. I think containment and trying to reduce terrorism is the best option.

[MrFun]

Maybe the United Nations will be more willing to help once the United States starts paying back what it owes . . .

[aneeshm]

I admit nothing can ever eradicate terrorism , not even the coalition I mentioned . But it can provide the necessary resources to states who do not want terrorism , and have not the forces to fight it . It can also help if America and Israel change their attitute to terrorists somewhat . You cannot fight a war against them , as they dont occupy any one place . And Israels' record of atrocities and terrorising the Palestinians , justified or not , is not above reproof .

[Sava]

No... and the Bush admin is making a half-assed attempt at stopping it domestically, and with foreign military operations.

[aneeshm]

And also necessary is a change in the way the people of the affected countries view it . The more they are antagonised , the more they will retaliate , as they have no other way of striking back . Vietnam (or Iraq) , anyone ?

[SlowwHand]

The USA could do it alone, but shouldn't have to.
Thankfully, there are some honorable Brits, to go along with the jackass members of the worthless U.N.

[Q Classic]

a single stick can be broken easily.
many sticks, bound together, cannot.

one nation, fighting terrorism alone, will find itself outcast and broken.
i don't want america to end up broken.

[Arrian]

The best-case scenario is cooperation between the security organizations of various countries that see eye-to-eye (or thereabouts) on the problem. Trouble is, that sounds a lot easier than it is in practice. Hell, our own agencies seem to have plenty of trouble cooperating with one another, let alone with foreign ones.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

This is what I want to know . How could the USA do it alone . We've tried even in small places with huge forces , and not succeeded one bit . The world is simply too big .

[aneeshm]

Trouble is, that sounds a lot easier than it is in practice. Hell, our own agencies seem to have plenty of trouble cooperating with one another, let alone with foreign ones.

And past and present differences of opinion do seem rather a hindrance . Only when tolerating each other (and one's enemies) becomes preferable to tolerating terrorism will countries really help each other in eradicating this . Though India agrees principally with the US , we cannot but doubt the efficacy of their methods .

[Arrian]

To use an example pertinent to India:

In order to really get rid of terrorism in Kashmir, India needs Pakistan's cooperation. If the two governments worked together, they could effectively crack down on the terror groups. Does that happen? No, primarily (from what I can tell) because Pakistan at least sympathises with, if not outright supports, terror attacks against India controlled Kashmir.

So, in order to get rid of the terror problem, India would have to convince Pakistan to help. That, in turn, would require some sort of compromise on Kashmir. That doesn't appear very likely, at least for now. So the problem persists.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

If Pakistan would quit worrying about India, India would take care of themselves via food and train wrecks.

[aneeshm]

Any compromise on Kashmir would reduce the prominence of the military establishment , as it's raison d' etre is the Kashmir dispute and their projection of India as against Pakistan . It's not the people , but the rulers who want this to continue .

The Pakistani public is , in fact , tired of dictatorship and war , while being envious of our (relative) progress .

[aneeshm]

Food , we have no problems except in distribution (we , in fact , have the largest stored stocks in the world of rice and wheat) . Train wrecks , you got me . . .

[Arrian]

Any compromise on Kashmir would reduce the prominence of the military establishment , as it's raison d' etre is the Kashmir dispute and their projection of India as against Pakistan . It's not the people , but the rulers who want this to continue.

Well sure, to an extent. Same with Israel/Palestine. Sharon and Arafat don't really want peace.

So, back to the "war on terror." The U.S. needs international cooperation to really reduce the international terrorist threat. Other governments will only help the U.S. government if they feel it is in their best interests (Pakistan, w/regard to Afganistan, for instance). Available tactics include: 1) bullying; 2) bribing; 3) convincing them it's in their best interests.

1 & 2 are quite straightforward, and as unsavory as they may be, can be effective. 3, on the other hand, is much more difficult, and may in fact include some of 2 (some reciprocity... we scratch your back if you'll scratch ours). What we have right now appears to be an administration that doesn't really care to try #3. They just don't see the world that way. To them, it's bully or bribe (or both). So that's how things will go for another year or 5.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

The more you bully and coerce , the more terrorists will be spawned . Why can't bush and his gang of international thugs realise this ? #3 is the only long-term approach that can work , and eventually get rid of the reason terrorists become terrorists (oppression by the west , real or percieved) .

[Bereta_Eder]

Amen.
Agreed.

[DanS]

Such things keep happening , and no-one pays any attention . Do the American people seriously think they can finish terrorists just by army operations wherever and whenever they so choose ? We learnt long ago that you cannot do it that way . We are still trying , though , and without much success .

No, we don't think we can finish terrorists alone. However, our military actions, among other things that we and others have done, have been an effective way to disrupt large-scale terrorism directed against us.

I would argue that most of the terrorism that India and the US (and Israel) face is not large scale. Even the embassy bombings during the 90s and Bali were perhaps not large scale (they did require extensive planning and knowledge, however). 9/11 was large scale in every sense of the term. We lost 3,000 people as well as hundreds of billions of dollars. It required years of planning and a substantial terrorist organization to back it up.

[Rogan Josh]

I think a first step towards ending terrorism would be to have a proper definition, that everyone accepts, as to what terrorism actually is.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[aneeshm]

You think that India has not faced large-scale terrorism ? This is what I mean about the world media not having any interest in India , even if it has repercussions elsewhere . In a span of fifty years , we have lost over a million , I repeat a million people . This , I think , is significant in itself . Aand the terrorists have stepped up operations very considerably , seeing that it did work against america , and provoked a rather , in our opinion , premature and drastic response .

[DanS]

How do you come by that 1 million figure?

One thing to note is that some terrorism does not require long-term planning with a large organization to back it up. Some ethnic massacres or apparently even some genocides would fit in here.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
No. We shouldn't have even tried. Damn Dubbya! Without the UN or at least a coalition this venture is doomed to failure.

True but to be honest there are 30 other countries contributing forces right now with hopes of others arriving in the coming months. Still, we'd do better if countries such as India, Turkey, China, Russia, Germany, and France joined in.

[aneeshm]

The number of people killed in anti-terrorism operations and killed just for being Hindus in Kashmir is where I get the figures . Though it sounds callous make that +- a few thousand .

[DanS]

The number of people killed in anti-terrorism operations and killed just for being Hindus in Kashmir is where I get the figures

Well, there have been pogroms going both ways. But anyway, if this were the type of terrorism that the US was worried about primarily, then military action would be pretty ineffective unless you were quite brutal in the execution.

However, al Qaeda lost some of its best men on the Shomali Plains to precision bombs at $17,000 apiece. It also demonstrated that the US was very serious in defending its interests. This must have had a particularly focused impact on Pakistan. We have been able to reel in much of al Qaeda with Pakistan's help.

[Oerdin]

A "war" on terrorism is like a "war" on crime or a "war" on drugs; it's a never ending battle which requires constant vigilance. The best we can do is knock off those governments which directly support terrorist enterprises and then pressure countries which have large groups of potential terrorists (I.E. Muslim countries) to enact a more liberal and less fundamentalist educational system. Sadly even in the best of circumstances it will still take generations before we can deindoctrinate the populations.

I wish it was just a political party we were up against because then it would be just like the deNazification campaign after WW2 where you just had to arrest high ranking party members who’s names were all on the party membership rolls. A religious ideology (I.E. Wahabism) with a bent for xenophobia and violence is much more difficult to combat.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by MrFun
Maybe the United Nations will be more willing to help once the United States starts paying back what it owes . . .

You don't keep up with current events do you? The US paid nearly all of what it owed two years ago.

[aneeshm]

People are scared when the anniversary of 9/11 comes around , no ? That is terrorism . Making an entire society or country paranoid and scared , insecure . This is the same thing we face in Kashmir , though much , much more intense . We also face the problem in your form , in large cities .

[Bereta_Eder]

Well USA is said deserved it.

What have you done?