Comments on: Time to drop “war on terrorism”

By: Marty

Marty — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:11:33 +0000

I do not agree with Rands assumption of utilizy law enforcement in apprehending insurgents and terrorists. They do not have the training nor the means to battle 20 to 40 insurgents in a full blown firefight. I served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Law Enforcement is useless in those areas that has a high capacity of combat, especially when the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are afraid of military personnel coming back from those warzones because of the tactics and combat experience that these veterans have. So what can the FBI and other law enforment agencies offer other than recruit for a military style law enforcement, engaged to kill instead to save and protect life?

By: Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:35:49 +0000

What do yo do with a bunch of religious fanatics that insist on killing those who don’t agree with them?

Don’t make treaties, since they will not abide by the terms.

Don’t bother bribing them, since, in the long run, they will take the money and continue to do what they are doing anyway.

“Re-education” has a very limited success rate, since religious fanatics are not really logical.

Not much left, is there?

By: Dumb Marine

Dumb Marine — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:28:41 +0000

the Fedreal government policy is to move there personell that screw up to a higher position with more power. which means that every turd in the government is a warshout from the privet sector and not compentent to wipe there own axse.
I am around the VA more than I wish to be and the policy stand send the axss hole to a higher job. clinical terms, lots of fiber shit floats. By the way military powere = nothing, but dead bodys. “If you sacrafice freedom for security you will have nether freedom or security” dont rember who said it but he right the more freedom you talk away the less security. If you dont like my spelling up yours you know what I mean, and having a 10,000 pound bomb cook off at 400 yards at the Da Nang bomb dump in 1969 dont help. But even without a brain I smarter than Bush.

By: LEON HOUSTON

LEON HOUSTON — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:06:16 +0000

This should have been a SPECOPS only war. DOD should never have been in charge. Homeland Security should have been truly organized after 9/11 to enable effective terror suppression with DOD support. Brains and muscle have to be coordinated without the jurisdictional BS that is so commonly associated with interagency student council sessions. We are too slow.
Check the logistical requirements of the Afgan
action. How is it that a small contingent of USCG can handle that? SPECOPS! Maybe before we ramp up there, we will try this new approach?
Let us quit making scape goats. The corporate drivers should not lead, they are not mission oriented, only quarterly driven.
New blood is needed for CIA,FBI,NSA,etc..with a mandate unlike any past SOP’s. JIATF OPS should lead with Force Recon/CGPSU’s/Seal/GB hunter killer teams, supported by Ranger reaction Force with USMC overwatch. Let’s get real boys and girls or else we will be CHINA~!

By: Arcane

Arcane — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 03:53:29 +0000

“a posteriori” is completely unhinged. Not only is 99% of what he’s saying completely inaccurate, but he can’t seem to maintain even a single train of thought.

Please, try some ADD medication.

By: a posteriori

a posteriori — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 09:27:04 +0000

Just because some sanctimonious percentile analyzers quantified data to justify more resources best suited to fighting a problem that misses the entire point of fighting faux war tactic rhetoric with blunt (but real) military war tactic.

What is created is real war tactic aimed at our “troops” where none existed before we, the CIA or monied interests started
poking their noses into political cycles of influence in resource rich, leadership poor countries, just the sort of playground the
CIA loves manipulating the political machinations while they sit at home and voyeuristically watch as their kinks predictably reach chaos threshold as easily as a row of dominos

Until most of us realize that meddling by the very agencies that RAND wants to redirect funding to.

This self-serving “report” requires an objective analysis by a conflict free agency, gratuitous think-tanks like RAND serve the worldview that benefits their bottom line via potential use of their “proprietary fear-monger funding enticement spreadsheet”.

The self-gratification of bean-counters to remove all negative causation elements from their “research” indicates that not only do most of you not “get it”, but RAND doesn’t get it either, (obviously the real truth never gets analyzed or released for public consumption).

Until anyone is ready to face the realities of false-flag attacks under the guise of “plausible deniability” wet-dream, then most of these amateurs will simply fail to see the entire picture, not just the parts you think you understand.

Until archaic chest thumpers are extinct, we as a species will continue to miss all the most obvious causation factors for perpetual human slaughter or “war as usual” because like those who fail to learn from history, we continue to reap the rotting corpse of stagnant thinking which refuses to deal with the death grip most people have on aspects of human life which have no basis in logic, but are deeply buried by irrational superstition, until we overcome this critical human flaw, we will continue to hate and kill anything that we don’t understand and afterwards, we continue to applaud the “heroic” sacrifice;

Main Entry: sacrifice
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: One or more living creatures slain and offered to a deity as part of a religious rite.

by our (fearful of dying unemployed in America) brave Warriors who die for (Halliburton stockholder portfolios) our (arrogant indifference to human suffering of non-white, non-Americans) Freedom, (to deny that millions of innocent Iraqis should die so we can barrel down the road in our family tanks to 7/11 for a slurpee).

By: Arcane

Arcane — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:14:59 +0000

The RAND study is bogus. It’s absolutely absurd to compare Islamist terrorist organizations with the non-religious terrorist organizations that existed in Europe prior to 1990. They have completely different motivations, ideologies, and objectives.

Any study that does not take that into account is useless.

By: Frank Szabo

Frank Szabo — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:36:39 +0000

“An analysis by RAND” …

Gee — what was their first clue? As if we hadn’t enough information from the Vietnam era to learn from.

Politicians ignore history and get many people killed as is evidenced by the Wall in DC and the casualty list during the Iraq “war”.

By: Carl Reiners

Carl Reiners — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:31:07 +0000

As of the mid 90’s, prosecution of terrorists was to be a function of the courts, our courts if tried by us here. The use of the military in fighting terrorists was to be left to Special Forces as part of their counterinsurgency role. I don’t know when or why all of this changed, because it had been doctrine for as long as I can remember.

By: A ELN

A ELN — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:18:52 +0000

I've become disillusioned with presidential politics influence on America's Army and now Presidential contenders for America's WhiteHouse are publicllie declaring their divine right of the military. You know I was in the military during the Clinton's last term in the WhiteHouse and our recon unit was training well. As far as I know as Bush took office he dismantled the Army. And thats the underlined reason loud voices are crying impeachment as stupid as it looks if you don't know personally the Bush's dismantling of America's Army in the middle of a full scale war and against a large Saudi Arabian family Bush is a murderous lunatic which could kill many soldiers. I can't believe The Cabinet watched Bush force the Hawks into retirement. This new idea of Partisan Republicans (oh really)! from a military standpoint, the situation is not under control. And what does Great Britain and Austrailia's Military think while they're in the war with us and Bush is not putting up a good fight for the uk. I mean it doesn't make sense.

By: DoubleD1943

DoubleD1943 — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:36:02 +0000

The speed of a civilian is measured at quiting time. Having said that, Our War fighters don’t get off work ar 1700 hours. They get paid a lot less then those civilians who don’t figure that we are still at war with those who would do us harm. Those who work in the think tanks are Ph.D’s MA’s and such who for the most part don’t know which end of a rifle the bullet comes out of. Some of them are former officers who retired and have forgot what the green machine is all about. How many of them have been to Iraq and talked with AlQaeda or any other terrorist group to see just how effective our troops are at kicking ass and taking names.

By: ronnie pond

ronnie pond — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:34:54 +0000

I think the rand people are Blowing smoke. they have to look and feel important to tell the pentagon brass how it see’s things. I thought that the pentagon was staffed with military people. maybe I was wrong are maybe all the military brass has never been in command of even a row boat, are a model air plane, maybe they play in a sand box with little tanks and little G.I.figures.boy thats one way to fill out a military career.with sand in your pants cuffs.unless they wear diapers.

By: tipover

tipover — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:13:48 +0000

BTW, my pride in the present military of all branches know no bounds. They went in as grunts, marines, navy and airmen and turned into SOF/Police/SWAT/Trainers/Intel/Robot and UAV drivers and “other duties as assigned”. As a former enlisted in the Army, Army Reserve and Air National Guard I saw the start of this and am still amazed with the professionalism, perseverance, flexibility and patriotism of these folks. Thank You all.

By: Cole

Cole — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:43:32 +0000

What tipover said with the added element of police and civil official corruption in the countries where insurgents often operate.

Case in point.…Afghanistan drug warlords bribing everyone in sight.

By: Radarnav

Radarnav — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:29:15 +0000

Tipover: Here, Here!!!!!!!

By: tipover

tipover — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:11:38 +0000

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” policy’s.

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.

By: Michael Difani

Michael Difani — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:09:14 +0000

I agree with this judgment, just as long as it does not end up being called a “police action” as Pres Truman termed the Korean War, with over 15 countries besides American troops involved from 1950–53. There were Scots, Brits, Turks, Aussies, New Zealanders et al.