Sitting Ducks

"Do grown men always have to play games?
Does everything have to be an excuse for another kind of game?
Do any men grow up or do they only come of age?"

"You don't know everything," the Gunslinger said,
trying to hold his slow anger. "You're just a boy."

"Sure. But I know what I am to you."

"And what is that?" the Gunslinger asked, tightly.

"A poker chip."

--The Dark Tower, Stephen King
________

We liked the response to a recent post and are running it here, with further commentary. It is from Minstrel Boy of Harp and Sword:

"You have exactly grasped a much neglected concept when dealing with terrorism. They are not at war. They are not warriors. They are criminals. Thieves and murderers who should be treated as such.

"The CIA has no law enforcement skills, and the military is not much better. Had the investigation team from the FBI been given full faith and credit along with the mandate for the response, arrest, and fair, open trial for the perpetrators of the USS Cole, the embassies, and the twin towers, the terrorists would not have been legitimized as "soldiers in the faith" or revolutionaries. That tactic worked very well for the Brits in Northern Ireland.

"It takes time, but when used skillfully the folks who are talking about high-minded revolutionary ideals revert to their true natures. During the course of "The Troubles" the political posturing of the provos was exposed to show many of them for the murdering, bank robbing, drug- and gun-running, protection racketeering thugs they were. The Sinn Fein guys went about their political process, and have reached many accords that were first deemed impossible."

__________

There are indeed realities being ignored in the Phony Made-for-TV War on Terror:

[1] Terrorism is not warfare, on any level.

[2] Terrorists are not soldiers.

[3] Terrorists are criminals.

[4] The Central Intelligence Agency is not a police organization.

[5] The CIA is an intelligence agency, only chartered to operate overseas.

[6] The CIA is not a prison administration.

Terrorists should be dealt with through the police and federal court system. This is the only legitimate answer to the problem of terrorism.

The fact that terrorists use violence and indiscriminately target and kill civilians is not a justification for U.S. leadership to set aside the democratic standards of conduct that are embodied in our legal system. What terrorists do can not become the standard for U.S. actions. Nothing should alter our national ethical and moral footing.

A complicating factor of the legal approach, however, is that the host nation where an attack against the U.S. takes place may in fact actively or passively officially support terror groups. Such may have been the case in the USS Cole scenario off of Yemen.

But in that instance, why did the Cole put into port in a high threat environment? Showing the flag is not a reasonable explanation for needlessly exposing a $1 billion U.S. ship to destruction by a $1,000 bomb. This scenario gives the terrorist the advantage in the assymetrical warfare model. Therefore, national policy should avoid placing such assets into hopeless, lose-lose situations.

Why does the U.S. place service members in harm's way for no discernable reason? Ceasing such provocative actions would be a good step in the actual confrontation with terrorists. The gunslinger approach favored by the current non-gunslinging president advances a dearly paid for bravado which does nothing to discourage terroristic activity against Americans.

CIA secret prisons, secret courts and secret torture sessions do not protect Americans from terrorists. To the contrary, these actions only increase the cycle of violence and hatred. U.S. actions must ratchet down the violence, versus increasing it. GWB's policies enhance violence at all levels.

Where along the way did we lose these basics:

[1] The Department of Justice (FBI) is lead agency for confronting domestic and/or international-transnational terrorism through their counterintelligence programs. Terrorism=FBI involvement as lead agency.

[2] Countering terrorism on a military installation is a police function, as it requires a response to a criminal action.

[a] CONUS: FBI is lead agency. The attacked installation would contain the incident until the FBI arrived to assume control of the event.

[b] OCONUS: Same deal, except under most Status of Forces agreements, the host nation is the lead agency. This fact does not sit well with most Post Commanders, but it is a fact of life. Post Commanders had Special Reaction Teams (SRT's), Post MP's and possibly attached units to utilize in the initial containment of a terrorist incident.

There were no significant terrorist incidents on any U.S. installation from 1971-present. This is not due to the hundreds of millions spent on training and physical security devices, but can be ascribed to the nature of the terrorist threat.

Terrorists seldom attack hardened targets. Even the Marines in Beirut in October 1983 cold be viewed as a soft-target, as there were no security/exclusion zones around their barracks, which were therefore easily reconned and targeted.

In the 1970's and 80's, the military was desperate for an enemy. Any enemy would do, if funding resulted. After the '83 attack, the military began to rev up their role in terror. Secret Army units assumed worldwide direct action roles that often violated international laws, treaties and practices. This was the inception of the go-it-alone philosophy in what would become the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©).

The problem is not terrorism per se, but the fact that there is no coherency at any level to U.S. policies and actions in the PWOT. America strikes Ranger as a runaway machine gun that hoses friends and foes indiscriminately, and nobody is attempting to twist the belt.