Can you agree that winning the war on terror doesn't mean killing every extremest?

Question

But it means defeating every government who gives them aid and comfort and making it so difficult for them to opporate that it is next to impossibel?

I am not saying that we shouldn't try to kill all terrorists but I doubt that is possible. Once we have cut their funding, given every nation the chance to become wealthy and free they will disappear into the caves and tents from which they came.

Answer 1

Every group or country that supports a terror group should be WARNED to STOP!

Answer 2

The most substantive thing we can do to win the war on terror is to not kill extremists, because all that does is glorify their cause by making them into martyrs. In fact, if anything, assassinating the extremists engenders the Islamic militant movement. Unfortunately, our government, and the enraged masses, cannot see past their own acrimony that the solution to the terrorist strangle hold on the Muslim world cannot be resolved with the belligerence, but through changing the hearts and minds of Middle Eastern people.

Answer 3

Naive. "Terrorists" and "Terrorism" are terms that define tactics, as are "Guerrilla" and "Guerrilla Warfare." These tactics are all about asymmetrical warfare. While state sponsorship no doubt makes the lives of organizations engaging in such activities easier, such state sponsorship is not required. The Taliban do not enjoy widespread support among other Arab states like Hamas and Hezbollah do and we destroyed their terrorist-freindly government. Even so they're still managing to give us problems in Afghanistan.

What if we do manage to take out every government that sponsors terrorists directly or harbors them? How could we occupy five countries at once when we aren't doing too hot with the two we've got already? Who's to say that the country that's left after we've smashed their government and infrastructure won't just hate us all the more for having invaded? Their country doesn't turn into America overnight--and some people might not want what America's got anyway. No, what those people actually get is chaos--anarchy, mob rule and warlords--like what we've given the Iraqis. This thinking cannot work.

The people you're talking about--while in fact being Terrorists who employ Terrorism--are not blowing people up just for the hell of it. Well, most of them anyway. Most of them are fighting for an idea. Good ideas or bad ideas, fights over ideas are always the same.

When you fight ideas there are only two ways to win.

1) Defeat the Opposing Idea. You do that by winnning Hearts and Minds and bringing them around to your way of thinking. In a war of ideas and ideals you must make yours more attractive than theirs. It must be something they can believe in.

This takes time. It's also very hard to do when you're in someone's backyard with a bunch of guns and accidentally blow up their house. It doesn't help matters when you think your ideas are just naturally more appealing--why would you have to explain or illustrate them by example? Don't they know we're better?

If you blow up someone's country or kill their family and then act as if it's a given that your thinking and morality is superior--well, they're probably not going to agree. They're going to call you arrogant or a hypocrite and want you out, regardless of any other good intentions you may have.

For the Hearts and Minds approach to work you've got to sell your idea and show that you live it. That means you must project the right image of yourself as well to reflect well on your ideas. America is doing a very, very poor job of this right now.

2) Eliminate the Opposing Idea. That is to say, eliminate everyone who believes in that idea. This is genocide. Although several tyrants in recent history have tried this none have been wholly successful. One problem with this method is that it makes martyrs who become rallying points for reenergizing believers and creating new recruits.
Granted we are much more effective killers today but I don't think even we could pull this one off using conventional warfare. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. is still not openly an empire and cannot afford to commit atrocities everywhere it goes. This approach is also counter to any ideals America and Americans are supposed to hold.

If you cannot do one of these two things you absolutely cannot win--and it doesn't matter if you've got the greatest military in the world. It doesn't matter if the people you fight live in grass huts. You can kill 30 of them--100 of them--for every soldier you lose. They will still send you packing out of their home and back to yours.

So I guess I do agree that winning a war against the current wave of terrorist organizations doesn't necessarily require killing every extremist. It requires marginalizing them so that they have nowhere to operate and don't have any appeal to attract more followers. This cannot be done through force alone, and definitely cannot be accomplished by the U.S. trying to ram its agenda down the throats of the countries where these organizations have taken hold. That just creates more sympathy for them and ultimately, creates even more terrorists.

Answer 4

Fair enough, but what about Saudi Arabia - the single largest funder of terrorist organizations in the world? What about their Wahabi schools that teach hatred of Western values?

They are one of the largest investors in the US economy and if they pulled their money out, we would be at risk of collapse. If they withheld their oil, we would be screwed.

Finally, what about nations whose governments aren't strong enough to eliminate said terrorists organizations? Lebanon was trapped by Hezbullah because Hezbullah was militarily stronger than the Lebanese Army. Is that Lebanon's fault? Couldn't a deal have been worked out to cooperate with the Lebanese government instead of utterly destroying their infrastructure and killing nearly 1000 civilians (some of whom I'm sure are Hezbullah, but it's hard to tell).

King Hussein said it best (and I'm paraphrasing): The US and Israsel are right to fight terror, but when it's fought incorrectly, it only aids extremists and hurts moderates in the region.

I'm really afraid we are on a road of continued escalation that will be very difficult to stop if we don't find a solution soon.

Answer 5

Since Islamic terrorism is fueled by an idea, I think you could kill terrorists from now until the end of time and it won't stop the problems. You can't assassinate an idea- you need to, as you said, root out its supporters and make sure they have no safe harbor- and then figure out how the idea becomes irrelevant.

Answer 6

I'll agree to that if you agree to have a serial killer living next to you and the police won't do anything about it. All it takes is one nut with a gun or bomb or chemistry knowledge to kill scores maybe hundreds of people.

Answer 7

If we needed to kill every extremist, guess what Pat Robertson and President Bush would both need to be killed-there extremists, simply in another religon.

Answer 8

no, I can't. Most here fail to understand terrorist can't be dealt with, talked with, made to see anything other than their own agenda, killing them is the only way to stop them

Answer 9

No, kill them all because they will kill you.