Impossible

On CNN this morning, a spokesperson for Palestine said the following (paraphrased, transcript not available yet):  "Israel wants to stop Hamas and Hezbollah, two goals that are impossible..."  Impossible, there is a word that should be coming out of the mouths of brave men about the war on terror.  Impossible.

Yesterday, after Koffi Annan proposed what seemed like logical steps to stop the aggression in Lebanon/Israel/Palestine, John Bolton announced that cease-fire was not an option.  He said (paraphrase) "How do you negotiate a cease fire with a terrorist organization?"  He used this question to back-up Israel's stated terms, which now include vague notions like "When Lebanon is free from Hezbolllah, we will stop." and "We will stop when we are finished."  Basically, Israel has adopted the same structure of war justification Bush and Co. used to get us into the endless war in Iraq, and it seems they are also operating with no clear plan to stop destroying Lebanon.  Israel began by saying that they wanted their kidnapped soldiers returned, and then expanded their goal and expectations.  Now, they state they will continue their destruction of Lebanon, basically until they feel like it. (What they've said is until Hezbollah is no longer in Lebanon.)  Bush, of course, made up a bogus excuse to get us into Iraq, but once there, made vague outlines of how the United States would get out, much like Israel is doing, "When the job is done, we will leave."  Then there is the ever moving goal-post "When elections take place."  "When Iraq has a Constitution." etc., etc...all the while claiming a significant presence of al Qaeda is creating the "insurgency."  

The problem with the "terrorist removal" program is that it assumes the terrorists will contain themselves in one place for any given time, and that once defeated there (if and when that is even possible), will stand defeated everywhere.  It wrongedly determines that terrorism is a phenomenon that can be controlled by traditional warfare, that it is not a product of radicalism, a problem in ideology, but something that can be beaten out of people who already consider themselves so beaten that they're willing to strap suicide bombs to their bodies.  Bush's and Israel's strategy does nothing but provide more justification for more terrorism, it pyschologically supports the creation of more terrorists.  If there is no way to negotiate with terrorist groups, then Bush and Israel should take a clue from that and follow the logic.  If there is no negotiation, if there is never any way to secure a cease-fire, then how is there a military solution to terrorism?  

Going back to Bolton's question, "How do you negotiate a cease-fire with a terrorist group?"  one realizes that several other questions logically follow in the light of what Iraq has proven.  

1. How do you have a traditional war with a terrorist group?

The answer Bush and Israel seem to have for this is to focus on one particular sovereign nation and have a war with it.  We have seen and continue to see the outcome of this non-logic.

2. How do you stop having a war with terrorist groups?

Neither Bush nor Israel seem to have considered how to end a war on terror, certainly neither has suggested how that happens at all, aside for "When we win."  with no explanations.  Which leaves the answer for others to wonder about.

3. Does a war on terror end when you have killed 50,000 people in the nation you've chosen to have a war with a terrorist group in?

Judging from Iraq, the answer is apparently no.

4. Does it end when everyone in the nation is dead?

5. How does a terrorist group surrender, and who decides when it has if there can be no negotiation for cease-fire?

6. If and when you are finally done killing en masse and obliterating a sovereign nation, or whatever you decide "winning" means in this war on terror, and you find that the terrorist group (surprise, surprise) has simply taken up operation in another nation, do you begin another war with that sovereign nation?

7. Who and what decides when and if the next sovereign nation should be attacked?

8. Yesterday, the count for Lebanese refugees crossing into Syria was at 50,000.  Do you think these 50,000 people, or the uncounted number of Iraqi refugees, will simply forget the overkill their nations experienced at the hands of Israel and/or the United States?  What are the chances that even people who supported the removal of Hussein, or peace with Israel, faced with desperation and injustice, will now feel the urge to fight back, by say, joining Hezbollah or Hamas or al Qaeda?  What are the chances they are going to see more clearly when they've witnessed their families killed, and been pushed out of their homes, lost it all?  

8. Desperation feeds terrorism.  
Why haven't our leaders acknowledged this simple fact?

9. In reality, doesn't this strategy of a "war on terror" in which no paramaters exist for the definition of how to end it, how to fight it, or who qualifies as an opponent simply lead to an endless war?

10. What exactly are the goals of the United States and Israel?   I agree with the spokesperson from Palestine, the current strategy, which appears to be masse killing in a sovereign nation to combat an enemy that both the United States and Israel refuse to accept as "valid" is an impossible strategy.  I cannot believe that leaders of both nations cannot clearly see this.    If they do see it, what are the goals?  Destabilization of the entire region?  Endless war?  Endless occupation?  The goals of PNAC, democracy throughout the ME,  seem to have been tossed aside as Israel, with the United States' blessing, has decided to undermine the democratically elected governments in the nations that surround it.  So, what is the goal?

Is it possible that the leaders in both nations don't recognize the futility of a war against terror that continues to bolster the very terrorist organizations they say they're trying to defeat?

Is this really about imperialism while crying "victim" from war to war?  

Who will step up and demand the answers to these questions?

Impossible.  The strategy is impossible.  Short an explanation of what the actual goal is that makes sense, it also defeats logic.  It is impossible and stupid.

Now, give me a Democrat to follow who will say that out loud.  

   

•  What does a military solution to

  terrorism actually look like?  Interested in knowing if anyone can actually follow the logic used by Bush and presently adopted by Israel through to the end result.  Thanks for reading and commenting.

  by Karma for All on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 07:01:48 AM PDT

•  It's very easy to see the end result

  Take a look at the moon some time.  No terrorism to speak of.  Not one spark of rebellion or civil war on the entire surface of the moon.

  Sure it's a lifeless ball of rock.  I'm sure with a bit of work, BushCo can figure out how to make a small country look just like the moon.

  by Corvidae on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 08:11:31 AM PDT

•  Recommended.

  This is the crux of the issue.

  You cannot fight a conventional military war against terrorists.

  There is no identifiable army, no real infrastructure.  You just end up killing thousands of innocent civilians.   This is a perfect way to create terrorists, not fight them.  

  Both Israel and the US should have learned all of this by now, but they still don't get it.

  by diana04 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 10:57:43 PM PDT

•  Does it end when everyone in the nation is dead?

  Bingo.

  Just like us in Vietnam -- gotta destroy the village to save it.  It is the logical end result of a solely military-based "antiterrorism" policy.

  Absolutely, we have to thwart people who use terrorist tactics with carefully tempered force.  It is too late for pacifism -- we are facing the backlash of a century of awful foriegn policy, and I'm not gonna take a hit for the sins of the likes of Kermit Roosevelt.  But the real answer is to change policy and actions (stop propping up dictatorships, stop setting the CIA upon socialist-leaning countries, etc.).  It really is better to be loved than feared.

  by Simplify on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 12:12:26 AM PDT

•  A-fuckin-men!

  To this:

  Now, give me a Democrat to follow who will say that out loud.

  by loopjunkie on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 01:46:03 AM PDT

•  It's not a military problem, it's a law and order

  You absolutely correct.  The only way you win is to get the “terrorist” to buy into the government.  To be stakeholders.  Then, police action against people acting outside the bounds of acceptable protest can be dealt with.

  If they are lone wolves or tiny groups, SWAT style tactics make sense.  When they represent a significant minority, you got to treat them as a minority with some lunatics.  You have to co-opt the minority into supporting the greater good of peace.  You have to compromise and accept that majority rules does not mean they can destroy the minority.

  None of this is a military action.  It is “Nation Building”, providing services, providing opportunities to advance and to effect be the government.  Then, the extremist who take to terrorist acts are criminals.  Not somebody’s patriot.

  by John Boy on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 04:28:11 AM PDT

•  You fight fire with water

  I completely agree with the sentiments expressed in this diary. We're spending billions of dollars for reasons that are not clear, and obtaining results that are antithetical to our hoped-for outcome. Worse - the more heavy-handed we appear to be, the more of a worthwhile target we become.

  If there's a way out, we got a big clue when that tsunami hit Indonesia and southeast Asia in December '04. At that time, Al Qaeda was gaining converts and Islamic extremism was on the march in the region. Worse, the anti-foreigner sentiment was increasingly being directed toward us. As I followed the story, the tremendous effort made by the US to help mitigate the disaster essentially snuffed out the immediate problem of anti-US sentiment in the region. The ideologues couldn't get any traction by talking about how bad the US is when everybody saw our people helping out for no other reason than that we are all human beings and we help each other when we're in trouble.

  We saw the same story play out in Pakistan after that major quake devastated villages in a remote mountain region. Huge gains in pro-American sentiment were made there. The quotes I remember were amazing - "I love America, I love Americans!" sticks out in my mind. And this place in the world is probably the least likely spot in which we would expect to gain allies.

  So we know how to create terrorists, we know how to create friends. I'm not arguing for pacifism as a panacea to any given problem we're looking at right now, I'm simply making this as a general observation: Where we have successfully defeated terrorism, we haven't done it with guns and bombs. We've done it with good will.

  by The Raven on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 05:33:17 AM PDT

•  In 1979,

  a movie, The China Syndrome, explored the possibility of widespread nuclear destruction due to human error at a nuclear plant. By the time my then-husband and I got around to watching it, the reactor accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania had already happened. At the end of the movie, my husband sobbed uncontrollably. Now, after reading this diary, I think I may understand how he felt.

  by anais on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 06:50:51 AM PDT

•  Excellent diary.

  Two things occur to me. The first is that those so intent on waging a war against terror are not actually fighting terrorists -- they are fighting the Boogyman, with whom there can be no negotiation because he is not human and has no legitimate point of view. He is treacherous to the core. It is lethal even to engage him at close quarters, to talk to him or look him in the eye. He must be destroyed at long range by overwhelming force. Second is that plutocrats love an endless war because it is highly profitable. I fear your very reasonable arguments are lost on those who guide and profit from the War on Terror. They are impervious to reason. Your last sentence says it all. "Now give me a Democrat to follow who will say that out loud." To get it out into the realm of acceptable discourse that the War on Terror, as currently consitituted, is a disastrous response to a very real problem, and needs to come under exhaustive public review.

  by ailanthus on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 09:14:03 AM PDT