How to defeat terrorism.

How Terrorist Groups End
Implications for Countering al Qa'ida

Abstract
How do terrorist groups end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. This suggests that the United States should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa'ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on terrorism” approach that relies heavily on military force.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

The Rand Corp. is not exactly progressive reading. However, when this study came out, it seemed to be ignored. Neither Retugs or Dems seemed to pay any attention.

I don't take them as gospel, but they have done significant research about terrorist groups. I think their approach should be seriously considered. Afghanistan is going to be very different in terms of types of fighting and the hostile landscape. If the Russians threw everything in there for 10 years and came up empty, what makes us think that we will do any better? I am not enamored of sending 20000 troops in there.

Better we build up serious local groups and use Black Ops to target Al Qaeda. We need some serious HUMINT and a better strategy now!!

Wave the Rand study at them. They are not liberals by any means. Better that than the loss of lives we might encounter.

There never was a military solution possible. It was and is a police matter. No country attacked us. A group of criminals attacked us. It was the knee jerking reactionary pro military and low IQ redneck stupid people and corporations that set us off on the wrong foot.

We followed the French into Vietnam and didn't do any better. We are following the Russians into Afghanistan and will not do any better.
The Rand study lays out for them a better map. Will anybody pay attention. Obviously, no!

but not the solution itself.

not much happening along the terrorist fron in N Ireland. What was done? can we learn from it?

we would invade Russia in the winter. People just never seem to pay attention to what has happened before.

The war I see (the CORRECT one against EXTREMIST Islam) is a war in which we have to fight alongside moderate Muslims to discredit the ideology of the extremists. This war CANNOT be won by military force alone.
Here's how you win the RIGHT war, and 1,2, & 3 must be done SIMULTANEOUSLY:
(1) FINISH the job begun in Afghanistan - eradicate the Taliban, and deny Al-Qaeda sanctuary there. Capture Mullah Omar, AND OBL. (BTW, why did Bush say he wanted OBL "dead or Alive" in December 2001, and then claim in late 2002 that OBL "wasn't his priority"? And WHY is the mastermind of the deaths of 3000 + Americans still alive & at large almost SEVEN YEARS after 9/11?) Push Pakistan for action on Al-Qaeda, and make it CRYSTAL clear that if they don't move, WE WILL whether they like it or not. Reminding them just how friendly we are with India might be useful there.
(2) Put "space-race" inensity into alternative energy - BREAK ourseves from foreign oil within a decade. From where do you think Islamic terror gets its money? Petrodollars. Why do we not pressure Saudi Arabia, from which came most of the 9/11 hijackers? We need their oil. As long as that leverage exists, we WILL NOT BEAT terrorism.Getting off oil - it's not just for environmentalists anymore...
(3) Begin AGGRESSIVE diplomacy - a "hearts and minds" campaign against jihadists focused on the Islamic world. Use the carrot AND stick, instead of just the stick. Tell AND demonstrate how Moderation brings peace and prosperity, while extremism breeds death, poverty and destruction.
(4) ONCE THE JOB IN AFGHANISTAN IS DONE, use our intelligence agencies, police and the Special Forces (and regular troops where appropriate) to eradicate existing cells of committed jihadists, because these guys won't respond to anything else. You cut off extremist Islam's air, while kicking its ass; this is basic warfare, page 7.
All Bush did (and McCain wanted to continue) is (4), and that's been utterly ineffective, as the 2006 NIE showed conclusively.

My point is that we will never eradicate the Taliban unless we have some extremely effective plan that I don't know about. I don't hear a lot of alternative strategies that are going to be used. Afghanistan makes Iraq look like a cakewalk. That's why I was bringing up the Rand study and suggesting using a completely different method.
I don't think we will ever finish the job in Afghanistan doing what I've heard.

Terrorism is, and has been, a means for a ruling government to instill fear(which it is not directly responsible for) upon citizens. Although I am aware that terrorism is a pending threat to national security it's no bigger a threat than most people's perception of contagious diseases(in my opinion a much bigger problem than perceived).
If terrorism wasnt overhauled by the government the way it was then it is very likely that terrorism would have ceased drastically, making it possible to persue very effectively by local police, intelligence agencies and policies. This is because people wouldn't feel as "terrorized" by terrorist any longer rendering the terrorists useless and pointless.
This "fear" made it possible for the justification of the unjustifiable such as the invasion of Iraq. It also made it possible to spy on citizens just to gather information for selfish interests that had nothing to do with natural security but rather paranoia.

Benjamin Franklin once said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,dont deserve and wont obtain either Liberty nor Safety."