Article

2008-03-11 Home Front: WoT

Counterterrorism Priorities Are Proving Wasteful

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2008-03-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top

#1 ION,BIGNEWSNETWORK > GEN. JOHN KELLY > AL QAEDA IS PLANNING A NEW LARGE ATTACK: IRAQI, US TROOPS GETTING READY. A "LARGE MEDIA-STYLE/CENTRIC EVENT"???

Kelly indics in article that AQ is now going after SHEIKS, SUNNI Leaders, + lower-level public officials e.g. Mayors, NO LONGER AGZ US OR IRAQI SOLDIERS.

Also from BIGNEWSNETWORK > THE DESTRUCTION OF IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME IS "GOOD FOR ARABS".

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-03-11 02:36|| 2008-03-11 02:36|| Front Page Top

#2 By expanding humanitarian aid with no strings attached, the US could do more to address hunger, disease and poverty, while reaping improving its standing and lowering terror risks.

Kumbaya, kumbaya

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-03-11 07:17|| 2008-03-11 07:17|| Front Page Top

#3 Translation:

If we were just good Dhimmi and pay the protection tax (Jizya) in humiliation, accept second class status, and let Hamas handle our children's education like we should - all will be better.

Posted by CrazyFool 2008-03-11 08:26|| 2008-03-11 08:26|| Front Page Top

#4 Leave it to the EUnicks to figure the cost of lives down to the cent, and then argue against spending those cents. Is there anything europe wouldn't sell for MONEY? They have already traded away their national identities, ethnic consciousness, personal rights, and dignity all in the name of trade and money, can't they at least keep their lives?

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-03-11 09:16|| 2008-03-11 09:16|| Front Page Top

#5 No muslims, no waste.

Posted by ed 2008-03-11 09:50|| 2008-03-11 09:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Given that the jihadis are going to attack anyway, we have a choice: submit completely or fight to the death. Either way we will pay whatever it costs. Any half measures are submission in slow motion, which is simply a more expensive way to achieve the same result.

But y'all go ahead and stop hardening your targets. I b'lieve our military people refer to that as the Flypaper Strategy. It's worked well for us in Iraq, although the natives aren't keen on the price they've paid.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-03-11 10:26|| 2008-03-11 10:26|| Front Page Top

#7 Yeah - I mean, just let a few attacks through every year. The cost in lives is much less than automobile accidents, and certainly this would result in a much more accomodating political environment (for the terrorists). Let's all listen to "Copenhangen Consensus" for our security needs from now on!

Posted by gromky 2008-03-11 10:43|| 2008-03-11 10:43|| Front Page Top

#8 Cost of a giant hole in lower Manhattan. The shut down of markets for weeks. The rerouting of airline traffic for weeks. Cost in lives. Impact upon the national economy. The cost of recovery. etc, etc, etc.

You can save all the hand wringing cost if you eradicate the environment [and all those in the environment] without mercy. It can actually be done cheaper than what we're doing now. However, this is the price of a 'Kinder Gentler' warfare. Lots of defense and hassle and limited offensive. Yes it is more expensive. Your alternative of surrender is not an option.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-03-11 11:11|| 2008-03-11 11:11|| Front Page Top

#9 Terrorists will inevitably shift to softer targets.

Geebus, this one statement disqualifies these goons from any protection. Of course, terrorists strike "soft targets", ya moron. They do it, not because it's just easier, but it holds more psychological impact.

For example, just look at 9/11. More people were shocked by the WTC attack ("soft target") than the Pentagon ("hardened target"). Not that I agree with EITHER attack, but an attack on a nation's military is at least "quasi-legitimate". Intentionally targetting "soft targets" (e.g. civilians) is what the jihadis do best. They're not exactly standing in line to attack Ft. Knox (a "high cost" target), but find it more convenient to strike your neighborhood mall.

Currently, the US gives only 0.17 percent of its gross net income as official development assistance - the second-smallest share among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries - and aid is highly skewed toward countries supporting the US foreign policy agenda.

Ah, I was waiting for more U.N. claptrap. Of course, you can cite percentages 'til the cows come home, but when 0.17% of our income equals $20 billion+ (assuming 0.17% of a $10 trillion/year GDP), that's still #1 worldwide and FAR outpasses the next closest "donor." And, as others noted, that doesn't even include all the "second-hand aid" we give these nations in terms of markets, trade, buying their cheap, lead-based paint toys, etc.

Posted by BA 2008-03-11 13:17|| 2008-03-11 13:17|| Front Page Top

#10 Yeah - I mean, just let a few attacks through every year.

Nothing new, really. The 'acceptable level of violence' school has been around for ages.

It's when it gets past the advocates' watchdogs and guards, and into their gated communities that it becomes a problem.

Posted by Pappy 2008-03-11 14:11|| 2008-03-11 14:11|| Front Page Top

#11 Although citizens of rich countries regard terrorism as one of the world's greatest threats, transnational terrorists take, on average, just 420 lives each year.

...and as long Bjorn and Todd aren't amongst them, they think that's...okay.

Posted by tu3031 2008-03-11 14:37|| 2008-03-11 14:37|| Front Page Top

#12 This would involve greater extradition of terrorists and clamping down on the charitable contributions, drug trafficking, counterfeit goods, commodity trading and illicit activities that allow them to carry out their activities.

It is both/and not either/or in my estimation.
Indeed, we seem to be doing both, AFAICT.

Posted by Guillibaldo Chusotle9664 2008-03-11 16:32|| 2008-03-11 16:32|| Front Page Top

#13 "No panacea for terrorism"? We haven't broken the seals off the napalm cannisters yet. Some of us would like harsher measures taken.

As for an assessment of resource use in GWOT. They have NOT been well allocated because our leaders chose to indulge "political islam," with the expectation that Muslim voters would support counter terror measures, and respect non-Muslims. Can't happen for reasons stated in the koran, and applicable to ALL Muslims: "jihad is prescribed to you." Muslims want us dead; our leaders want them in our neighborhoods.

Posted by Pancho Phaling1080 2008-03-11 17:24|| 2008-03-11 17:24|| Front Page Top

#14 sad, because Lomborg's been doing yeoman's work as a Glowball Warmening skeptic.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-11 17:38|| 2008-03-11 17:38|| Front Page Top

#15 By expanding humanitarian aid with no strings attached, the US could do more to address hunger, disease and poverty, while reaping improving its standing and lowering terror risks.

Um... considering we already do and the US is the biggest giver of humanitarian aid in the world, and most of the terrorist leaders come from well-to-do families I would say your "root cause" argument is full of bullshit.

Fuck off and we will continue to kill the terrorists as we see fit.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-03-11 17:56|| 2008-03-11 17:56|| Front Page Top

#16 Time to charge the world for feeding them.

Posted by ed 2008-03-11 18:01|| 2008-03-11 18:01|| Front Page Top

#17 There is always that er problem in cost/benefit analysis--that of measuring the costs and the benefits.

Posted by JohnQC 2008-03-11 18:24|| 2008-03-11 18:24|| Front Page Top

23:55 anymouse
23:53 anymouse
23:49 trailing wife
23:13 3dc
23:04 3dc
22:55 JosephMendiola
22:51 OldSpook
22:49 OldSpook
22:41 ed
22:39 Galactic Coordinator Spereting7009
22:34 ed
22:34 Abdominal Snowman
22:29 Frank G
22:25 ed
22:19 crazyhorse
22:11 lotp
22:09 crosspatch
22:09 DMFD
22:01 JosephMendiola
21:44 Phort Barnsmell7838 aka Broadhead6
21:41 Fred
21:40 Phort Barnsmell7838 aka Broadhead6
21:35 Pappy
21:32 legolas