Serious Error Of Judgement

[Gladys]

But, regardless of your views, do you not think Bin Laden is now iconic? His image is fast catching up on Hitler's for the most evil person ever to walk this earth.

[bluemonday]

What distinguished 9/11 is the planning, breathtaking audacity and the location of the targets.

 

As an act of Terrorism - taking the principle that the act is done to inspire fear - it succeded beyond belief.

 

As Gladys points out Bin Ladin has become iconic. He is now Hitler, the bogeyman, the great monster in the darkness.

 

The solution/resolution lies far beyond Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

 

Religion and ideology all play a part as well as intolerance and ignorance.

 

Bin Laden, AQ etc are not the total problem, perhaps fear is.

[Pat Ayres]

And all too frequently religion is used as a reason for these acts.

Maybe the answer lies closer than you think.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The solution/resolution lies far beyond Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

 

Religion and ideology all play a part as well as intolerance and ignorance.

 

Bin Laden, AQ etc are not the total problem, perhaps fear is.

 

 

What do you mean though about the problem being perhaps fear? Instilling fear and influencing others is the purpose of terrorism but I don't think fear is the problem though. I think the problem lies with political and economic systems that create the environment, and that when understood or responded to in relation to a fundamentalist take on religion becomes dangerous to the innocent civilians of western countries. But the problems in this world do not lie with the general public.

 

I think you are right about Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The war in Afghanistan is no longer about terrorism, it is now just a grand waste of time and money. Al Qaeda left there long ago. Iraq was never driven by the need to eradicate Al Qaeda, and if it were would have been an even bigger mistake.

[Chinahand]

The war in Afghanistan is no longer about terrorism, it is now just a grand waste of time and money. Al Qaeda left there long ago.

Can you clarify that LDV - they left for the tribal areas of Pakistan where they now launch attacks into Afghanistan.

 

Political instability in Pakistan has allowed AQ and the Taliban to reclaim a safe base and hence distabilize Afghanistan.

 

The situation in Afghanistan has got considerably worse as Pakistan has weakened as Musarref (can't spell) became ever more involved in saving his own arse and the fundamentalists took advantage of this vacum.

 

Terrorism - as in car and suicide bombs - has increased dramatically in the last year or so - while the Taliban has moved away from conventional tactics.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The war in Afghanistan is no longer about terrorism, it is now just a grand waste of time and money. Al Qaeda left there long ago.

Can you clarify that LDV - they left for the tribal areas of Pakistan where they now launch attacks into Afghanistan.

 

Political instability in Pakistan has allowed AQ and the Taliban to reclaim a safe base and hence distabilize Afghanistan.

 

The situation in Afghanistan has got considerably worse as Pakistan has weakened as Musarref (can't spell) became ever more involved in saving his own arse and the fundamentalists took advantage of this vacum.

 

Terrorism - as in car and suicide bombs - has increased dramatically in the last year or so - while the Taliban has moved away from conventional tactics.

 

The fundamentalists who are fighting in Afghanistan are the remnants of the Taliban, and not as far as I am aware pockets of Al Qaeda. I was being little vague in what I meant about Afghanistan not being about terrorism, but the American and European forces originally came to Afghanistan to rid the world of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and they failed to do so. Bin Laden and most of his followers left Afghanistan. Now the American and British are trying to prop up the new democratic regime. It would involve a regime that would be expected by the West to route out and suppress Taliban cell and any other terrorist cells, but the original raison d'etre of the mission has been lost to some long and drawn out campaign to 'stabilise' a country. I don't really have any support or faith in the chance of success for a stable Afghanistan when the West's foreign and economic politicies are disliked by so many in the world today.

 

In what you refer to by car bombings and suicide bombs in relation to a move away from conventional tactics you are talking less about terrorism than asymmetic warfare. If the bombers and bombs are targeted against military forces it is not terrorism. Terrorism would be bombs exploded for the purpose of instilling fear in the civilian populace. Asymmetic warfare would itself not necessarily make the Taliban terrorists. In a conflict it would also be of no moral difference if a soldier used a gun to shoot someone or a freedom fighter or 'supposed terrorist' strapped a bomb to themselves and blew up the enemies soldiers. It's simply a different manner of fighting you enemy.

[Skeddan]

Asymmetic warfare would itself not necessarily make the Taliban terrorists. In a conflict it would also be of no moral difference if a soldier used a gun to shoot someone or a freedom fighter or 'supposed terrorist' strapped a bomb to themselves and blew up the enemies soldiers. It's simply a different manner of fighting you enemy.

LDV - I agree that asymmetric warfare does not make someone a terrorist. You can also have asymmetric warfare conducted according to 'laws of war' - Geneva Conventions etc. Even if these are not adhered to, that does not necessarily make the person a terrorist. Instead they are an unlawful combatant - with much more limited rights.

 

However there is a moral difference. Laws of war are actually pragmatic and limit the destruction and suffering to civilians and non-combatants. If someone uses suicide car bombs, without distinctive combat insignia etc. then civilians are more likely to get killed by mistake at checkpoints etc. (as in Iraq, Northern Ireland etc. etc.). Things become more brutal, nasty and hatred and tensions are worsened, and war becomes protracted. That is not good.

 

BTW I do not accept the argument that an asymmetric war cannot be effectively carried out while keeping within the laws of war.

[Chinahand]

Thanks for clarifying LDV - I agree with many of your points.

 

I think it is complex to try to tease a clear separation between the Taliban and Al Qaeda - they both have very similar ideologies, but the Taliban are more centered on Afghanistan while Al Qaeda wish to operate where ever they can. I think I'd say Al Qaeda operates to support the Taliban in Afghanistan just as they do in Iraq, Algeria, the Philipines or where ever. This Canadian article reports Pakistani official saying Al Qaeda are closely involved with the Taliban organizationally, while this earlier report shows them funding them while letting the Taliban take the lead role.

 

That seems logical to me as the Afghanistanis are a xenophobic people and many Al Qaeda members are Arabs from outside Afghanistan.

 

I also think you've made valid points about asymetric warfare, but I'd also say that as well as increased asymetric warfare their has also been an increase in pure terrorism in Afghanistan.

 

I would say that I always thought that in order to stop Afghanistan remaining a base for terrorism you'd have to stabilize the country, and I pretty much always thought that would be a longer job than destroying the original Al Qaeda threat. The inability to control the Pakistani border had vastly complicated these tasks and merged them together.

 

Skeddan - I thought unlawful combatant was only an American term which has really complicated international law in this area. I didn't think it existed in the Geneva accords or whatever.

[mollag]

But, regardless of your views, do you not think Bin Laden is now iconic? His image is fast catching up on Hitler's for the most evil person ever to walk this earth.

Sorry for delay and yes i agree he is iconic, from a western perspective, wrongly i suspect--he isnt and most likely will never be near Hitler/Stalin in pure evil terms.

 

To us in the UK the IRA were a much greater threat on a daily basis, great evil was placed on the shoulders of those men who now sit in governance. Where now is the evil?

The west needs the focus of a bad guy and Bin Laden fits the bill so his likeness is reproduced all around, hence this thread. In truth he is on a par with the likes of Guevera with whom he shares a lot of similarities, cept Che had a cool beret and cigar. Che was also hunted to death by the CIA which one hopes will be the same for Bin Laden.

 

But Bin Laden the great shaitan? not for me

 

 

But when George is on his golf life next year, surrounded by only the best security, what legacy will he leave us?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Asymmetic warfare would itself not necessarily make the Taliban terrorists. In a conflict it would also be of no moral difference if a soldier used a gun to shoot someone or a freedom fighter or 'supposed terrorist' strapped a bomb to themselves and blew up the enemies soldiers. It's simply a different manner of fighting you enemy.

LDV - I agree that asymmetric warfare does not make someone a terrorist. You can also have asymmetric warfare conducted according to 'laws of war' - Geneva Conventions etc. Even if these are not adhered to, that does not necessarily make the person a terrorist. Instead they are an unlawful combatant - with much more limited rights.

 

However there is a moral difference. Laws of war are actually pragmatic and limit the destruction and suffering to civilians and non-combatants. If someone uses suicide car bombs, without distinctive combat insignia etc. then civilians are more likely to get killed by mistake at checkpoints etc. (as in Iraq, Northern Ireland etc. etc.). Things become more brutal, nasty and hatred and tensions are worsened, and war becomes protracted. That is not good.

 

BTW I do not accept the argument that an asymmetric war cannot be effectively carried out while keeping within the laws of war.

 

I see what you are saying. Looking at it from the conventional perspective, yes, I would suppose that asymmetric warfare COULD be conducted according to international war. But in many respects this could seriously undermine the fighting potential of the weaker side (i.e. the force employing strategies and tactics of 'unconventional warfare') in comparison to the State (using conventional tactics), if say guerilla fighters decided to don military uniforms and distinctive combat insignia. Yet neither side in a conflict would gain favour were they to target or seriously put the lives of civilians at risk. And even if the unconventional fighters did decide that the risks of accidentally killing civilians was worth the goal of the conflict this stance would differ little from conventional warfare where such a stance is a fact. How many civilians have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, WW2, South Ossetia, Vietnam..., all accidentally by the military forces of a nation state. Moreover, one need only look at the nuclear bombing of Japan to see that under circumstances deemed by the American government, it was acceptable to kill civilians. It would have saved the lives of American soldiers and did shorten the war, but thousands of non-combatants died for that.

 

However, from the perspective of my political beliefs when talking about war there is little moral differential between the killing of civilians and soldiers, it is all murder, and is completely unjustified unless the fight is against oppression or for gaining freedoms. And the wars conducted by the armed forces of nation states have always been for the interests of the elite, and invariably it is always the people and soldiers who suffer. International law, though it offers some protection to non-belligerents, though if had not been adopted by the governments of the world surely conventional warfare to seen to be even more ugly than it already is. Besides it is a code for the conduct of a government's military, but when it comes to the fighting force waging unconventional warfare, whatever their cause it seems irrelevent for them to adhere to international law as they, far more often than not, are not a State army, navy, or air force. It is usually fought on their own turf where it would be fruitless to kill civilians of the same nationality or in the same locale as where they are operating.

 

In terms of Iraq you have freedom fighters who have no other opportunity to confront their invader than to adopt unconventional practices. Solely in terms of the roadside bombs and suicide bombings targeted against the American and British military it would seem that this is an understanble and pragmatic method of attacking them. It doesn't benefit a Sunni to plant a bomb that would kill other Sunnis. (The conflict between Sunni, Shia, and Kurd where terrorism is used is another matter). But it would be ridiculous for them to look to international law as a right and proper way to conduct their campaign.

[Chinahand]

LDV - I slightly disagree with you re:intra religious conflict. In Algeria the fundamentalists fissioned into multiple groups - all Sunni, all Arab - and they waged a war of destruction against each other. It was massively violent and shows the type of morality that can emerge from a cult which has adopted violence against what it sees as the infidel. It looses its moral compass and easily become a war of absolute destruction.

 

It was the turning of more moderate Sunnis against these types of tactics in Iraq which have enabled the defeat of Al Qaeda in Anbar province etc. Al Qaeda and multiple "revolutionary groups" definitely undertake terrorism against their own.

 

Also Vietnam was an asymetric war fought far more in lines with International war than the current conflicts - the Viet Cong were treated as POWs with full Geneva conventions rights etc with a very approximate uniform - often little more than the famous black "pyjammas" - it is the change in the "War on Terror" which has so complicated International Law with the new category of Unlawful Combatant.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - I slightly disagree with you re:intra religious conflict. In Algeria the fundamentalists fissioned into multiple groups - all Sunni, all Arab - and they waged a war of destruction against each other. It was massively violent and shows the type of morality that can emerge from a cult which has adopted violence against what it sees as the infidel. It looses its moral compass and easily become a war of absolute destruction.

 

It was the turning of more moderate Sunnis against these types of tactics in Iraq which have enabled the defeat of Al Qaeda in Anbar province etc. Al Qaeda and multiple "revolutionary groups" definitely undertake terrorism against their own.

 

Also Vietnam was an asymetric war fought far more in lines with International war than the current conflicts - the Viet Cong were treated as POWs with full Geneva conventions rights etc with a very approximate uniform - often little more than the famous black "pyjammas" - it is the change in the "War on Terror" which has so complicated International Law with the new category of Unlawful Combatant.

 

But then I think I would agree with what you are saying about Algeria. Though I would say that in my view, wars are destructive and when the killing starts such an immoral act has been committed that it seems shocking that emphasis is places about the moralities of how people are killed and who is killed. It doesn't mean it is irrelevent, and I think morality is a subjective matter, but warfare in almost all cases is immoral because it involves killing.

 

In terms of revolutionary groups waging terrorism against their own people, yes in Malaya for example the Chinese population risked being murdered were they to assist the State. This is an example I can think of, but in this example the state also coerced the Chinese people to not help the communist insurgents, if people were caught doing so they would be executed unless they offered their services to the State to divulge where the communists were hiding. But what examples were you thinking of?

 

It is a fact as you say that the 'War on Terror' has created problems in classifying combatants. If democracy and conventional justice are to be observed it would seem better to try these people in the courts upon capturing them and classifying them as combatants, as this would fit more with the democratic liberalism underpinning the West. It was a mistake for the US to use military tribunals and detain suspected terrorists indefinitely. Though I am digressing the UK government is guilty of eroding democracy with its new terrorist laws and legal definitions of terrorism. Given the new definitions, an anarchist or communist who damaged property can be classified as a terrorist. Or a Kurd who comes to the UK to distribute Kurdish political papers could be arrested on suspicion of links to the Kurdish freedom fighters in Turkey. It is all a bit fuzzy.

 

Can you explain a little more about what you saying about Anbar Province? In relation to what you were saying about Al Qaeda, I was talking about freedom fighters and those who use unconventional warfare solely against military forces, as you earlier made mention of those who cannot fight conventionally anymore in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is a different matter, and yes they attack anyone who is classified as an infidel, even though within their own locale. But in their view, 'their own' refers to other Muslims who interpretations of Islam mirror their own.

[Chinahand]

I think this is rapidly expanding beyond simple posts, plus I am very tierd, but I am troubled by your dicotomy between "freedom fighter" and Al Qaeda terrorist or whatever.

 

At the moment I am reading a book on the American revolution which comprehensively demolishes the Foundation Myth of a unified population rising to fight for freedom from an oppressor.

 

Segments of the community wished, often for reasons of pure avarice, to rebel. They destabilised their communities, and often with only minority support, but an armed militant minority support, forced the revolution. Often those who disagreed lost everything to the rebels (life, liberty and property), and the general population simply wanted to keep their heads down, but were forced into one of two mutually hostile camps by circumstance.

 

After the event the victors can be called Freedom Fighters, but often they were coercive against their "home" populations. I don't think we need to go to Malaysia to see this. Northern Ireland with its punishment beatings, knee cappings and big men seems a perfectly good example.

 

I feel that very often what occurs is a civil war within the local population with the results either a revolution or a reaction against it.

 

In Anbar the attempt to forment a revolution has failed - the "freedom fighters" have failed to coerce the population to rise - and there will always be a certain amount of coercion no matter how clear cut the fight seems - many French wanted nothing to do with the Marquis. The result is basically a civil war with terrorism against the population escalating. In Iraq Al Qaeda adds a Pan-Muslim complication to this, but they fully support the coercion of the insurgents acting against who they see as apostates, but at a basic level the community has split.

 

This definitely creates a more violent form of conflict than when conventional armed forces of separate states fight each other as each side seeks to be seen as legitimate.

 

As you say its all a bit fuzzy and nastily violent.

 

Oh and one other point: I fail to see how a communist or anarchist letting off a bomb against the establishment is any different from any other person who uses violence to coerce.

[jimbms]

NEWS FLASH!!! This morning at 8am the Manx SAS stormed T K Max and captured the Bed Linen

[Skeddan]

I see what you are saying. Looking at it from the conventional perspective, yes, I would suppose that asymmetric warfare COULD be conducted according to international war. But in many respects this could seriously undermine the fighting potential of the weaker side (i.e. the force employing strategies and tactics of 'unconventional warfare') in comparison to the State (using conventional tactics), if say guerilla fighters decided to don military uniforms and distinctive combat insignia.

 

when talking about war there is little moral differential between the killing of civilians and soldiers, it is all murder, and is completely unjustified unless the fight is against oppression or for gaining freedoms.

 

LDV - I’d have more sympathy if your argument was that all killing is wrong under any circumstances. However you seem to say that fighting, killing and violations of the laws of war may be justified if against oppression or for gaining freedoms. (Both sides in South Ossetia, Vietnam etc. claim that).

 

Yes, it does limit the fighting potential in some respects. Certainly it requires more intelligence, courage, discipline, moral strength and commitment for a weaker side to carry out asymmetric warfare according to laws of war. However, I do not accept that it limits effectiveness. Military might is not everything – see Sun Tzu.

 

Laws of War and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) were adopted not so much for moral reasons but because of ‘military operational effectiveness’. If you transgress moral boundaries, you only strengthen the enemy’s will and determination to fight and undermine your own.

 

IMO one of the biggest mistakes is to think that waging war is about killing and destroying the enemy. It is about achieving a disputed political objective and destroying the opponent’s will or ability to oppose this.

 

Asymmetric war, and ‘Fourth Generation War’ (4GW) and 5GW etc. are interesting ideas which to some extent recognise the importance of targeting the opponent on the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level. William S. Lind made the following astute observations:

 

What "wins" at the tactical and physical levels may lose at the operational, strategic, mental and moral levels, where 4GW is decided. Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that the British Army has taken more casualties than it has inflicted. This is something the Second Generation American military has great trouble grasping, because it defines success in terms of comparative attrition rates.

 

We must recognize that in 4GW situations, we are the weaker, not the stronger party, despite all our firepower and technology.

Clicky

 

In terms of military success, Ghandi achieved far more than the IRA, PLO, ANC, Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, the Vietcong or any other weakly waging semi-conventional ‘dumb’ war. It was asymmetric warfare. Ghandi won because he led the stronger side. IEDs, bombs, murder, killing, firepower and inflicting casualties on the enemy had nothing to do with his success.

 

LDV – I’m prepared to accept that non-conventional war might be justified to fight against oppression or gaining freedoms (certainly if this is fought as Ghandi did). What I do not accept is that violations of IHL, war crimes or unlawful combat can be justified by ‘freedom fighters’, either morally or militarily.