Article

2008-07-31 India-Pakistan

Countering al Qaeda, a must-read for Pakistan

It's probably unusual to link to a report by the RAND Corporation and an op-ed on Foxnews.com in the same blog, but since both address the same subject -- tackling al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region -- here goes.

The first is a detailed report by RAND called "How Terrorist Groups End".

Its analysis of 648 groups that existed between 1968 and 2006 concludes that "military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory." Calling for a rethink of U.S. strategy, it argues that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qaeda."

Continued from Page 4

Pakistan's leaders have long argued that military force alone can't work and have sharply rebuffed any suggestion that U.S. troops in Afghanistan might cross its border in pursuit of al Qaeda and the Taliban. "The U.S. military ... should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the report says. It does however say that military forces, but not necessarily U.S. forces, are a necessary component when al Qaeda is involved in an insurgency.

Since the report has been written from a global perspective, its prescriptions do not always fit easily into the Pakistan context. For example it dismisses the Kashmir conflict as one that may take generations to resolve and "not a primary reason" for al Qaeda's existence or support, without tackling the web of historical, militant and strategic links that bind together the fates of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir and India. But it's packed full of data and analysis and worth reading in full.

And for those who prefer easier reading and don't mind the flippant tone, this piece on Foxnews.com caught my eye. The writer, a former CIA counter-terrorism officer, is determinedly irreverent, suggesting for example that North and South Waziristan should be renamed North Fubar and South Fubar.

But his conclusion is far from flippant: "The reality is that U.S. forces can't operate in the region unilaterally unless we somehow suspend disbelief and decide the risk versus gain is worthwhile," he says. "The next possibility, U.S. and Pakistani troops fighting side by side against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, is also highly unlikely given the backlash the Pakistani government would experience."

"Over the next year or two we'll undoubtedly pull troops out of Iraq and add troops to the effort in Afghanistan. That will in all likelihood help to further stabilize that country and allow for continued progress in the development of the infrastructure and government. What it won't do unfortunately is resolve the problem across the border in Pakistan," he says.

Posted by Fred 2008-07-31 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11146 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Pakistan

#1 The problem is that none of the other terror outfits declared war on America, carried out significant terror campaigns and finally attacked on American soil killing close to 3,000 civilians (I consider the blind sheikh, Hezbollah and Paleos the same ilk as AQ). Read Andy McCarthy as to why policing and G2 just doesn't cut it. Plus that is the Kerry / Obama / Democrat approach. Do we really believe you defeat AQ that way? And Rand is even suggesting that since 48% of terror groups get incorporated into coalition governments (i.e. Northern Ireland?) then what do we do if we tell AQ to lay down their arms and agenda and join the Pakistani or Afghanistani or Saudi Arabian governments? Would we want an AQ as part of the Iranian government? I don't think so. I think the study is well done quantitatively but its recommendations do not fit defeating AQ.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2008-07-31 08:22|| 2008-07-31 08:22|| Front Page Top

#2 U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase war on terrorism

Ah, here it is. They started with the answer, and worked backwards from there.

Posted by gromky 2008-07-31 09:33|| 2008-07-31 09:33|| Front Page Top

#3 What this thinking also misses is that we are not only fighting al Qaeda in North/South Fubar but the Taliban, effectively a proxy militia of the ISI. There is no need to invite the Taliban into the government of Pakistan, they are the government of Pakistan.

Our problem is that we are at war with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Iran and for a variety of reasons refuse to admit the fact. RAND should know better.

Posted by Excalibur 2008-07-31 09:49|| 2008-07-31 09:49|| Front Page Top

#4 Interesting talking points, but where is it that RAND can show success with their recommended methods? Seems to me that most every trick in the book has been tried by someone, somewhere, at sometime. It's easy to claim failure of OPS(Other People's Solutions). It tain't so easy to maintain one's own "solution" against knowledgeable skeptics. I didn't see the whole report, but what I saw looked like a bag'o'buzz. More work on this report is needed to make it useful. If I'm wrong, please help me understand. We all could use a few good solutions in this area, whether they be marines, better equiped village cops, vaccine clinics, or economic aids. Anything that works short of total genocide.

Posted by Richard of Oregon 2008-07-31 11:01|| 2008-07-31 11:01|| Front Page Top

#5 If you make them part of the coalition than truly the terrorists have won and their tactics have been proven effective. This would be the absolutely last ditch, we're gonna lose otherwise, tactic if you ask me.

If we call off the War on Terror and return to police type action we are telling the terrorists of the world that there is a line. On one side you can kill as long as you don't kill too many, the other side says kill so many and we'll kick your arse for awhile. This sents the groundwork for perpetual low-level terrorism.

However if we change tactics and go from overt War on Terror (which fatigues Western consciousness) and go to a special forces, special ops, and mercenary level to press the fight on until victory we might be able to continue while allowing our military and war weary citizenry to rest and recoup. This strategy says that terrorism will be dealt with, we're done with this killing civilians nonsense.

I think course three is the best. To continue with our current strategy of removing governments that sponsor we are going to seriously wear down our troops through constant deployments.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-07-31 11:22|| 2008-07-31 11:22|| Front Page Top

#6 I seem to recall a number of Euro terror outfits that did not survive the fall of communism and the loss of their state sponsors.

I suspect that if the ISI ceased to exist, if certain wealthy Arab sponsors suddenly expired, we may see the same with a number of jihadi groups.

Posted by john frum 2008-07-31 15:28|| 2008-07-31 15:28|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm not sure if that will work or not but I'm 100% behind your plan.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-07-31 17:33|| 2008-07-31 17:33|| Front Page Top

#8 John's plan is the cleanest, most efficient, fewest casualties on all sides and cheapest but not PC.

Comments that I had on the DoDBuzz on the RAND report follows:

RAND has missed the point in that that lawfare only works in a society that believes in the rule of law. Since there are many in the world that do not follow that premise, lawfare did not and will not work. That the police and the courts will take care of it attitude at places like RAND and the halls of government is the primary reason our troops have had to be used to address the problem after the failure of lawfare policys.

The use of modern police techniques by the military does not negate the need for military presence to make it work. Passing some laws and telling the police and courts to take care of it will not address terrorism or radical Islam.

Posted by tipover 2008-07-31 22:40|| 2008-07-31 22:40|| Front Page Top

21:10 newc
20:17 SteveS
18:44 magpie
18:33 Frank G
18:33 badanov
18:26 Hellfish
18:23 Hellfish
17:40 swksvolFF
17:34 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:30 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:02 Melancholic
16:27 Gravilet Snanter4154
16:20 Chaise Speaking for Boskone7897
16:02 Skidmark
16:01 Skidmark
15:46 Skidmark
15:41 Skidmark
15:37 swksvolFF
15:36 Skidmark
15:34 Skidmark
15:27 Skidmark
14:48 NoMoreBS
14:31 NoMoreBS
14:16 NoMoreBS