On Terrorism, On Guerrilla Warfare, and Onward With the Global Fight Against the Terrorists
Is it possible to win the 'War on Terrorism' asks the peanut gallery during this political season.
Well, many would argue that you cannot fight an ill-defined enemy and "Terrorism" is a tactic, not an enemy.
That doesn't mean you can't have a war against a tactic, you can, first I suppose you'd have to remove the word from every language and dictionary, and delete all the events, until people in the future forget it ever happened - doubtful indeed.
There are global initiatives afoot to stop the use of nuclear weapons, bioweapons, and even gas-air weapons such as anti-personnel cluster munitions and things like napalm.
The Geneva Convention has agreed upon rules for other methods, weapons, and tactics used in warfare in the past, so perhaps it is possible to have a "war" against such things as tactics, but they are not something you can combat using armies engaged in battle to stop.
Yes, you could use Spy Craft, international courts, and criminal law to remove those who will not align with the global agreements.
But if we are going to have a war against terrorism, then indeed, we really should be having a systematic strategic plan to eliminate "terrorists" - and we need to be careful with definitions, and it's important to understand exactly what terrorism is, how it is used, and why it is a preferred method by the terrorists in the first place.
Here are 11-items I came up with and my preliminary thoughts all of this is; 1.
) There is a big difference between straight guerrilla warfare against the powers that be, terrorism, and defending against an occupying force 2.
) Terrorism doesn't have to include violent acts, it can be merely the threat of such - for instance we are entering the age of Nuclear Terrorism, even if the terrorists don't have a nuke, if people think they do, they have power "fear factor" to accomplish their political, and ideological goals.
3.
) Fanaticism mixed with terrorism creates even more "fear" for the victims as the misunderstanding of the "bad guys" adds by way of "fear of the unknown" and unpredictability.
4.
) Terrorism is unfortunately one of the cheapest forms of propelling political will, thus it is an effective weapon and harder to combat.
5.
) If the victims change their methods to appease, or modify their culture, it emboldens terrorists to continue, if they refuse to change the tactic is less viable.
6.
) Terrorism in the modern era is more effective due to the media to amplify even the most minor events, thus, is a key ingredient for those who use this tactic 7.
) You can defeat an enemy or serve your political will using the tactic of terrorism alone, if your victim acts out of fear and establishes new bureaucratic measures in your favor effecting their economic flows, society, or security.
It depends on your objectives.
8.
) Since terrorism is a method or tactic, you can't have real "War on Terror" anymore than you can have a war on "evil" or "cooking" or "breathing" or "CO2 emissions" 9.
) The Revolutionary War tactics against the British was more guerrilla style tactics than terrorism, and the British tactics against Americans were more akin to iron-fisted rule using fear tactics, which was more akin to terrorism.
10.
) Using Brutal Tactics on your enemy can destroy their will to fight, and thus, submit to your authority, but it comes at a high-price.
Once in control the leading by fear has to continue as there is no legitimacy backing it up.
11.
) The goal of a nation-states leadership should be to bring guerrillas into the political process and negotiation tables - pure terrorists (using the definition of those who actually commit acts, not just use fear without acts) should be hunted down and eliminated, so there is a difference, and although it may seem definitional - there is a difference, and it isn't always what the media calls it, or the leadership may label it - thus, the line gets blurry right? If you have additional thoughts and would like to continue this conversation, email me.
Well, many would argue that you cannot fight an ill-defined enemy and "Terrorism" is a tactic, not an enemy.
That doesn't mean you can't have a war against a tactic, you can, first I suppose you'd have to remove the word from every language and dictionary, and delete all the events, until people in the future forget it ever happened - doubtful indeed.
There are global initiatives afoot to stop the use of nuclear weapons, bioweapons, and even gas-air weapons such as anti-personnel cluster munitions and things like napalm.
The Geneva Convention has agreed upon rules for other methods, weapons, and tactics used in warfare in the past, so perhaps it is possible to have a "war" against such things as tactics, but they are not something you can combat using armies engaged in battle to stop.
Yes, you could use Spy Craft, international courts, and criminal law to remove those who will not align with the global agreements.
But if we are going to have a war against terrorism, then indeed, we really should be having a systematic strategic plan to eliminate "terrorists" - and we need to be careful with definitions, and it's important to understand exactly what terrorism is, how it is used, and why it is a preferred method by the terrorists in the first place.
Here are 11-items I came up with and my preliminary thoughts all of this is; 1.
) There is a big difference between straight guerrilla warfare against the powers that be, terrorism, and defending against an occupying force 2.
) Terrorism doesn't have to include violent acts, it can be merely the threat of such - for instance we are entering the age of Nuclear Terrorism, even if the terrorists don't have a nuke, if people think they do, they have power "fear factor" to accomplish their political, and ideological goals.
3.
) Fanaticism mixed with terrorism creates even more "fear" for the victims as the misunderstanding of the "bad guys" adds by way of "fear of the unknown" and unpredictability.
4.
) Terrorism is unfortunately one of the cheapest forms of propelling political will, thus it is an effective weapon and harder to combat.
5.
) If the victims change their methods to appease, or modify their culture, it emboldens terrorists to continue, if they refuse to change the tactic is less viable.
6.
) Terrorism in the modern era is more effective due to the media to amplify even the most minor events, thus, is a key ingredient for those who use this tactic 7.
) You can defeat an enemy or serve your political will using the tactic of terrorism alone, if your victim acts out of fear and establishes new bureaucratic measures in your favor effecting their economic flows, society, or security.
It depends on your objectives.
8.
) Since terrorism is a method or tactic, you can't have real "War on Terror" anymore than you can have a war on "evil" or "cooking" or "breathing" or "CO2 emissions" 9.
) The Revolutionary War tactics against the British was more guerrilla style tactics than terrorism, and the British tactics against Americans were more akin to iron-fisted rule using fear tactics, which was more akin to terrorism.
10.
) Using Brutal Tactics on your enemy can destroy their will to fight, and thus, submit to your authority, but it comes at a high-price.
Once in control the leading by fear has to continue as there is no legitimacy backing it up.
11.
) The goal of a nation-states leadership should be to bring guerrillas into the political process and negotiation tables - pure terrorists (using the definition of those who actually commit acts, not just use fear without acts) should be hunted down and eliminated, so there is a difference, and although it may seem definitional - there is a difference, and it isn't always what the media calls it, or the leadership may label it - thus, the line gets blurry right? If you have additional thoughts and would like to continue this conversation, email me.
Source...