Down in the Zeroes
If you don't have anything to do,
don't do it here
--Old Army saying
______________
Their new study released Tuesday, "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al-Qa'ida," says calling the conflict with al-Qaeda a "war on terrorism" is a fundamental error, as "(t)he phrase falsely suggests that there can be a battlefield solution to terrorism, and symbolically conveys warrior status on terrorists."
Study authors Seth Jones and Martin Libicki write, "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors." Jones, the report's lead author, said "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument."
"But the authors contend that al-Qaeda has sabotaged itself by creating ever greater numbers of enemies while not broadening its base of support. 'Al-Qaeda's probability of success in actually overthrowing any government is close to zero,' the report states."
Well, that from a multi-million dollar study, and we have only been saying that since our humble start. This vindication is cold comfort after seven devastating years from which the U.S. may never fully recover.
So why do Senator John McCain and Defense Secretary Robert Gates still see terrorism as an existential military threat (Gates Sees Terrorism Remaining Enemy No. 1)? The day after the Rand study was released, the WaPo reported:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says that even winning the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will not end the "Long War" against violent extremism and that the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorists should be the nation's top military priority over coming decades, according to a new National Defense Strategy he approved last month.Is it possible that the Department of Defense embraces terrorism as public enemy #1 because without it, they are irrelevant and jobless? Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) as make-work effort? The new WPA, but without any functional product to show for their efforts?
To paraphrase Curtis LeMay, "Fear is their product." Thank you Messrs. Rumsfeld and Gates, co-architects of America's descent.
Labels: phony war on terror, PWOT, rand corp says al-qaeda strategy faulted, terrorism is law enforcment concern, terrorism not military concern
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:58 PM
7 Comments:
"To paraphrase Curtis LeMay, 'Fear is their product.'"
And the biggest money-maker mankind has ever known.
I don't know if I've thanked you both before...so thank you; for publishing a thought-provoking and intelligent blog.
-Dale (The Mad Celt)
MC, thanks for the up.it's really appreciated. jim
Range, how can you have a war on terror when war IS terror? Also, you cannot fight an "-ism" with the military.
Has the Rand Corporation been reading rangeragainstwar? Or did they just finally wake up from their fear induced nightmare?
And you can add my thanks and praise to that of the mad celts.
terrible, the things that i consistently discuss were in fact government policy and doctrine in the 80's. Reagon started the ball rolling by using military correlations to terrorism and later administrations followed suit.
I've always considered Rand Corp as an unofficial CIA mouth piece which makes their latest findings so unique. Who in fact is talking to us- rand or cia?
In addition none of this is rocket science and it's all simple logic.
thanks for the up- i really need the positive support in this effort. jim
you might check out jihadica.com to check out AQs reaction to the RAND piece. They call it the most serious blow against them in their War of Ideas on their own discussion sites, so much so that it is being express-translated into arabic. For those of us who has been saying this shit for nearly seven long years, its just amazing...
Range, you can't fight an "-ism" with the military. You may fight the "-ists", but not an "-ism". I STILL say it--how can you have a war On terror when war IS terror??
Post a Comment
<< Home