It is Official-The "War on Terror" is Stupid and Doesn't Work

by: dostephen

Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:10 PM CDT

In a study released July 29th entitled How Terrorism Ends: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida Seth Jones,Ph.D. and Martin C. Libicki make the case that the "War on Terror" has failed to curb the world wide terrorist activities of al Qa'ida. They examined 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006 looking for how they eventually ended their activities. What their, dare I say it, scientific, study revealed is that the concept of a military solution to the problem of terrorist activity has never worked. Instead, "most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members." Not that most of the readers of this site didn't already know it but they also found that the terrorist activities of al Qa'ida have only increased since 9-11 and that they also have expanded into Europe, Asia, Africa and of course the Middle East.  

Military action was only successful 7% of the time out of all of the groups they studied over 38 years but the terrorists won 10% of the time. Even within their own study the authors claim that military action should be used against large, well armed groups who form an insurgency.
Sounds like they covered their asses on the Surge. But a closer look at the surge actually supports the authors major findings. General Petraeus' work in Iraq has reduced violence but he did not use military might to do it. What he actually did was to become the hard nosed diplomat in the country that Connie Rice refused to be. He negotiated with the Sunni terrorists that were killing so many of our troops and found that they too were angry at the foreign fighters that al Qa'ida had brought in to their country. With the help of generous donations of cash they agreed to help Petraeus and his troops root out and kill al Qa'ida fighters. Then he used the extra troops of the surge to police the streets and establish permanent placements within each neighborhood, which sounds like well fortified police stations to me. So let's get this straight. John McSame and King George would have us believe it was our military "winning" a "war" on the terrorists in Iraq that substantially slowed down attacks there. In fact, it was the diplomatic and policing efforts of a well educated General who focused on negotiations with local (terrorist) leaders that brought about the reduction in violence.
The difference between the way McCain and the neocons describe it and the reality of what Gen. Petraeus accomplished is not just semantic, but the semantics are important. In framing our efforts to end terrorism as a war we feed the war profiteers of the military-industrial complex, create new enemies, break our own laws and lose our standing in the world. By framing terrorism as a matter of diplomacy and using policing as a method of keeping the streets people live on safe, we engender friends, cooperation, progress and we enhance our standing in the world. But then again don't expect any Democratic leaders to point these obvious facts out because they suck at framing issues. They just don't seem to even try. George Lakoff could write a thousand books and they still wouldn't get it. In the meantime you can bet that McCain will be touting the winning "military" strategy of the surge as though he thought it up.