You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Terror war only fuelling more violence
2007-04-12
The US-led and British-backed ‘war on terror’ is only fuelling more violence by focusing on military solutions rather than on root causes, a think tank warned on Wednesday.
And you can never think too much about root causes. Soon as I hear 'root causes', I know exactly with whom I'm dealing.
“The ‘war on terror’ is failing and actually increasing the likelihood of more terrorist attacks,” the Oxford Research Group said in its study, titled “Beyond Terror: The Truth About The Real Threats To Our World.”
Frustrated academics strike again. We can never measure up.
It said Britain and the United States used military might to try to “keep the lid on” problems rather than trying to uproot the causes of terrorism.
Turns out that 'keeping the lid on' is a pretty good way to uproot terrorism, so long as you squash a lot of hard boyz with that big heavy lid ...
It said such an approach, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had actually heightened the risk of further terrorist atrocities on the scale of September 11, 2001.
After all, look how many 9/11's we've had in the U.S. since 9/11.
“Treating Iraq as part of the war on terror only spawned new terror in the region and created a combat training zone for jihadists,” the report’s authors argued. It pointed out that the Taliban movement was now resurgent, six years after it was overthrown in 2001 by the US-led invasion in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The Taliban is so resurgent that it can briefly hold a district or two in a region near the Pak border. Until the Canadians come looking for them.
“Sustainable approaches” to fighting terrorism ...
Is that like 'sustainable agriculture'?
... will involve the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq and their replacement with a United Nations stabilisation force, it said.
And exactly where will we find a UN force to do that? Iran? Syria? Bangladesh? We can't get a UN force into Somalia or Darfur. Talk is cheap which is why it's so prevelant on campus.
It also recommended the provision of sustained aid for rebuilding and developing Iraq and Afghanistan as well as closing the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where most suspects are held without charge or trial.
All the usual progressive buzz words right there.
And it called for a “genuine commitment to a viable two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict”.
Of course. Silly us, why hadn't anyone thought of this before?
The study warned that military intervention in Iran over its nuclear ambitions would be “disastrous,” calling instead for a firm and public commitment to a diplomatic solution.
'Firm' should never be used by a Y'urppeon academic. It's a foreign word to them.
The study also said the British governmentÂ’s plans to upgrade the submarine-based Trident nuclear deterrent could produce international instability.
After all, look how destabilizing the Trident is today.
“Nuclear weapon modernisation is likely to serve as a substantial encouragement to nuclear proliferation as countries with perceptions of vulnerability deem it necessary to develop their own deterrent capabilities,” it said.
Posted by:Fred

#18  In fact...

The Rantburg Center for Civil, Well-Reasoned Discourse opened this week by issuing a study showing that the use of the Logan Act to prosecute US citizens, including politicians, who had attempted to circumvent US foreign policy abroad was long overdue. The Center, long known for its' conservative and right wing views, issued its report and specifically cited House Leader Nancy Pelosi's recent so-called "fact finding" visit to Syria as a key point.

...wait, that's not stupid...though it might seem so to those on the left...

It could work...



Posted by: FOTSGreg   2007-04-12 22:19  

#17  xbalanke, the same way these jerks did - create a think tank out of thin air, say something stupid, and apply for a government grant.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2007-04-12 22:13  

#16  The study warned that military intervention in Iran over its nuclear ambitions would be “disastrous,” calling instead for a firm and public commitment to a diplomatic solution.

Neville Chamberlain couldn't be reached for
comment.

..a think tank warned on Wednesday.

How can I get a gig like that - getting paid for thinking up (or even just repeating) inanities?
Posted by: xbalanke   2007-04-12 14:30  

#15  These jerks never explain why the increase in violence in say Thailand, or Nigeria.
Posted by: wxjames   2007-04-12 13:38  

#14  From their website...

Global Security for the 21st Century

This programme contains projects which focus on security threats that are global in their causes and impact. The solutions to these threats will require fundamental shifts in the way that organisations, governments and peoples think about, and legislate for, war and peace.

Central to this programme is an ongoing critical analysis of the current ‘war on terror’ which shows how acutely the current approach to security is failing, and how it is in danger of distracting world leaders from the far more deadly and unavoidable threats posed by climate change, resource competition, poverty and marginalisation, and global militarisation.

Linked to this analysis are a range of initiatives to shift thinking towards non-military conflict prevention, and the protection of innocent life.

Sound like a bunch of British hippies got together and started up a "think tank"...

Posted by: tu3031   2007-04-12 13:28  

#13  # allan=demon
# demon=terror
/usr/bin/perl

for ($i = 0; $i <= $NumberofMuslimMilitants-1; $i++) {
kill (2, $target[$i]);}

die ("The World is now a safer place!
");

kill HUP => -$$;

Posted by: anymouse   2007-04-12 13:09  

#12  
La Ilaaha il Hitlah Muhummudun arsool la la

(repeat x3)
Posted by: Admiral Allan Ackbar   2007-04-12 09:50  

#11  Koran = root cause.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-04-12 09:18  

#10  I'm a big believer in sorting out root causes.

Those would be the ROP and MSM / LLL / Marxist academics enabling the dissemination of its various memes.

Whilst I am realistic enough to recognize that this is unlikely to happen before the next Hadean Glacial Maximum, it seems reasonable enough to suggest that were there a greater awareness of these issues, and a stronger general resolve, military actions could once again be effective deterrents, rather than (at best) partially effective solutions.

Whilst it is true that the military defeat of the Ottoman empire brought about a massive decline in Jihadist fervour and Khalifatist bandwagoning, this time it is more a failure of the ideologies underlying our own civilisations than the limited material successes emanating from their own closed system that provides the motivating factor.
Posted by: Admiral Allan Ackbar   2007-04-12 09:06  

#9  And we have a winner! David D hits it square on the nose.

Terrorism.RootCause = Islam
Islam.God(Allan) = Monster

When a peoples' god and prophet are monsters -- we should expect them (as a whole) to become a monster.
Posted by: Captain Lewis   2007-04-12 08:48  

#8  "It said Britain and the United States used military might to try to “keep the lid on” problems rather than trying to uproot the causes of terrorism."

I agree. And I note that terrorism these days seems to have one "root cause" that makes all others pale to insignificance: a fanatical devotion to Islam.

Posted by: Dave D.   2007-04-12 07:00  

#7  High School Driver's Ed classes cause more auto accidents and Sex Ed classes cause more teenage pregnancies.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-04-12 02:57  

#6  There are root causes, but they are unacceptable to the progressives.

For example, the root cause of the Palestinian 'problem' is the river of cash that perpetuates an essentially indolent population, with unlimited free time to plot, seethe, etc. Were they to have to work for a living and run a real state raising its own revenues and provide its own services, the Palestinian problem would dissapear overnight.
Posted by: phil_b   2007-04-12 02:06  

#5  A few years back, I was in a meeting with a few folks from our very own spiffy intel community, and the "counter-terrorism" guy actually came out with the "root causes" incantation. When I picked my jaw up off the table, I exercised olympian restraint and mumbled something vague.

Excellent fisking, Fred, and great comment, Atomic. I'd add that in addition to destroying and deterring actual terrorist nitwits, a primary goal of some operations is to deny such groups state sponsors or sanctuaries, and esp. state-provided WMDs (thus Iraq). This stuff ain't that hard to understand. The existence of the sort of infantile confusion exhibited by the "study" is astounding enough, its popularity and resilience is beyond comprehension.
Posted by: Verlaine   2007-04-12 01:27  

#4  Frustrated academics strike again. We can never measure up

No truer words have been written. Most of these academics are frustrated marxists that are perpetualy disappointed that the real world does not co-operate with their beutiful theorys.
Posted by: Helmuth, Speaking for N guard   2007-04-12 01:26  

#3  Yes, RD. Ain't it great?
Posted by: Eric Jablow   2007-04-12 00:54  

#2  Terror war only fuelling more violence

..and cancer surgery begats more cancer

..and fornication begats more fornication

..and passing laws creates more criminals
Posted by: RD   2007-04-12 00:31  

#1  It's true, the Japanese fought a lot harder after Pearl Harbor than they did before, so I guess declaring war just created more militarists. So what?
The idea is not to deprive people of their incentive to be terrorists, it is to destroy ALL of those who respond to such incentive. The central fallacy of the defeatist meme that fighting back "only creates more terrorists" is that the terrorists have always had more recruits than they could possibly use.
Lying media beasts will provide them with the incentive they need regardless of what we do. The objective is to kill as many of them as necessary to discourage the others from acting on this incitement and to convince their sponsors and apologists that their goals cannot be achieved through terror.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2007-04-12 00:31  

00:00