War on Terrorism Strategy
 

United States Lacks the Capability to Counter Insurgency in the Muslim World

A report commissioned by the Pentagon and just released by the Rand Corporation calls into serious question our strategy in dealing with Islamist insurgencies. I think it is an interesting read.

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/02/11/

My summary is that we are not going to be able to shoot our way to victory. This is not WWII. Sure the military is heavily needed but they/we are not going to win this war on the strengths of our military alone.

Um . . . yeah . . . they really needed a high priced "think tank" to figure that one out.

Well, maybe it will help some others figure it out.

I doubt it, this is by far not the first time the government (that is not controlled by the administration), has suggested such a thing! I think many will not change their views no matter what is presented to them! This is a great article and is the same thing I have been saying for years, but will probably have no effect except maybe persuading a smalll percentage of Mccain voters to swing the other way! Thank you though, I suppose when a think tank says it it means more than some 20 year old teen sitting on his bed!


Jeremy Ryan

I was thinking it might have some impact on the portion of the public that still seem to think we are going to win the war in terror the same way we won WWII.

Some maybe, it is a good article, yet some are too set in their ways to see it!


Jeremy Ryan

So very true, but I suspect I may mean that a little bit differently than you!

Yeah, I've noticed the tremendous outpouring of support for larger governmental organizations, and the additional funding (taxes) that would be needed.

Okay, let's see if we can control the mobs of civilian professionals who are currently lining up to deploy to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan. What! -- they aren't mobbing the State Department to spend a year-and-a-half or so at a time in these lovely Middle-East havens??

Oh, here's some more billions of dollars needed, too. No problem!! Everyone's gonna support that...

Yep, all those allies and international organizations that have lined up ever since WWII to suck at the US teat and then avoid any potential "unpleasantness" by backing away from any support. They're gonna match the US effort. You betcha!!!

I don't think so! The U.S. Army, Marine Corps and Special Operations Forces must improve their ability to organize, train, equip, and advise their own forces. And they need the funding to be able to do so.

And these professional police trainers, just where do we acquire them? From those same hordes beating down the doors at State? Or perhaps we should start conscripting them?? And they have the benefit of watching the news to see just where the insurgents are targeting their efforts. Hmmm, another Police Station blown up... let me run right down and volunteer! Yeah, I'm holding my breath for that... NOT!

In case you haven't noticed, the very people with the attitudes needed are the ones that are ALREADY serving this country in our Armed Forces. Could they use some additional help? Of course they could.

Do I see the liberals racing to provide it??? Not a chance in Hell!!!!


I agree!!


.[:(!][:(!][:(!]

A revolution is exactly what is needed to change a form of government. Not all revolutions require military or force, but the reality is that most eventually get there...

I do agree that military alone is never enough. The military is a bulldozer. It is needed to clean out the debris of the old dictatorial regimes, and even to remove the smaller bulldozers on that site. Then the building can begin.

Often times the bulldozer can be used to help with some of the heavy lifting in the early building stages, but it is not the best tool, even if it does help.

At some point, always, it takes locals to take control of their own lives and their country. The fix will never happen without this.

World history if full of people with pitchforks and shovels taking control from those with guns. Go back far enough, and it was pitchforks and shovels against swords and horses. It does not matter. Until and unless this grass roots effort happens, there will not be success.

I see the big difference between the US using it's military and the examples of French in Indochina (Viet Nam and the area) and the USSR in Afganistan, is that the U.S. wants to spread Democracy, and build trading partners, not expansionism. This is our motivation. In the other examples, expansionism was the goal.

I do believe that a free people will always be a more productive and happy people. I am not alone.

And I agree that the concept of throwing money at a problem is no more the solution than throwing an armor division or two at it.

Northern Africa is full of examples of hugh amounts of money and foreign aide that was sent in to head off a revolution, or to bolster local governments. It has failed just as much as any military examples given. And there are some very rich despots as a result.

The solution is always local people wanting to make a better life for themselves. Short of that, there is nothing that can be done for any long term success. If a local group has an idea, and is willing to do the deed, but needs some help, that is where and when we should get involved. Otherwise the best you can hope to accomplish is to trade one mess for another.

I am reminded of the simple fact that you cannot get anything clean, without making something else dirty. I don't care if you are washing your car, or the floor, or overthrowing some dictator.

You can, however, make things dirty, without actually making something else clean. This is just making a mess, or moving from this kind of mess to another kind of mess.

I believe that the best of intentions were involved in Iraq and Afganistan, but because of insufficient local buy-in, the road has been much more difficult than anticipated. There is local activity, just not enough to make it work.

Well, that is the basic issue. We're not at war with a military but rather "terrorists". There's no way to round them all up. There is no central "bunker" where the leader is holed up. We can't simply capture that and end the war. They simply go into hiding and can out last our willingness to occupy their country.

Further, it's not just one country.

There is no actual way to "win". Any semi-decent game theorist would have told them the exact same thing years ago and in fact, many did.

Yep, quade, you've called it. However, it does give the government and the military/industrial complex an excuse to spend our money and remove our freedoms, in the name of "fighting terror." Nothing like throwing out a boogyman out there to get everyone up in arms. <sigh>

Pam