If I Were Running the War on Terror

Ryan asks an interesting question in a comment a little ways down about which style of campaign I'd pursue in the War on Terror.

And its an important question, one that I've not actually thought completely through.

I don't think an all out war is really feasible against an adversary that strikes without warning, against civilian targets with little regard for their own survivability. If terrorists could form into an army of their own that would attack in a traditional fashion then maybe it would work. But part of the nature of terrorism is to strike where its unexpected, to rattle one's self of security and safety, to undermine the defenses of your opponent by physical threat as well as perceived threat.

I've had ideas that would be of help to terrorist strategists but I would never post them here for fear of actually aiding my enemy. And its easier to see the chinks in your armor if you're looking from the inside out. Also, having grown up and lived here forever has given me (and many others) insights into ways that could be employed to wreak greater havoc. But that will never happen, I wouldn't give my game plan to the other side.

The more likely means to combating terror is to take the fight to them. Keep them on the defensive so that its harder for the terrorists to mount an offensive, to upset and diminish the resolve of those opposing the terrorists. And Ryan touched on this as well, its harder to hit the soft underbelly of our country if you're already running for your own life waaaay the heck over on the other side of the world.

And here is one of my main issues with terror campaigns. There's no reason that all of a terror group would have to be engaged on any single front and it would seem to make eminent sense to commit some troops to carrying out attacks on the enemy's home turf. But then, its harder to plan and execute a terror campaign when you're getting bombed and having to up and relocate every few days to avoid capture.

By the way, I heard a rumor that the French are close to capturing Osama bin Laden and I truly cannot wait to watch George Bush demand that they hand him over to the US for trial. Maybe it won't come to that but damn, what a non-feather in his cap to have allowed the French to get the guy responsible for 9/11.

Anyway, other ways of defeating an enemy engaged in a terror campaign. Remove their safe havens so that they are running from place to place without a chance to regroup properly. Without land to call home, they have less to battle for, they have less ground to fight on, they have less of a chance to disrupt and destroy. Safe havens like Lybia, like Iraq, like Afghanistan, like all the other war torn hell holes in the Middle East that have seen nothing but more and more bloodshed since the dawn of time. Another good means to limit their ability to wreak havoc would be to cut off their money, hard to blow the world if you can't afford to buy materials to make explosives. Sure, they'd be able to figure out alternatives but that takes time and time isn't on the side of the terrorist when there is a world wide manhunt.

Which brings me to another good idea, put bounties on the capture of known terrorist leaders. Big ones. I read that the US government had paid the informant who helped lead us to Uday and Qusay, we moved his family and gave him something like $15 million. I also read that Saddam's informant got jack because, apparently, we found him pretty much on our own. And, come to think of it, the government has been pretty quiet on what's been happening with ol' Saddam, I wonder how he's enjoying US hospitality.

But think about it, a nice hefty bounty for bringing a dangerous terrorist to justice? Not only would a danger to society be removed but hey, you're set. Sell out the terrorists in your neighborhood and then you can just buy the neigborhood! I'm sure that things like this are already in place and the machinery is grinding while trying to catch the worst of the worst terrorist buggers.

And hey, maybe even it would be possible to "break" a terrorist during his long prison stay. Expose them to the fruits of Western society long enough and they'll become accustomed to and even like the pleasures afforded. I doubt that it would be a good tactic as it could backfire but hey, people rub puppies faces in their poop when they mess in the house, this would be the same thing sort of.

The War on Terror isn't really winnable in the traditional sense, its containable and the damage inflicted by terrorism can be limited. And in limiting, that is a sort of defeat. Allowing people to live their lives without fear of surprise terror attack is the defeat of terrorism. We're nowhere near that point now and even have domestic terrorists operating from within our country, people with agendas of violent governmental overthrow, people with axes to grind on any number of issues, people that have given up on talking and have resorted to violence and fear as their mediums. Domestic terrorists are no different than other terrorists, maybe they're even worse for turning on their own people and country? I don't think so really though, they're attempting to facilitate change, sure, they're doing it wrong but I would tend to think that they were still acting out of a misguided sense of loyalty to the country. I'm sure there are plenty of arguments and examples to contradict my thinking but it makes me feel a little more secure this way and what's wrong with a subtle trick of the mind to help me sleep at night and not worry that my neighbor down the street is working on making some home grown nerve gas?

[Update: A post over on Anybody But Bush highlights some of Bush's flippity floppy actions and is a good reminder of just flexible Bush is, throw him some money and he'll support your cause even if he's just said the exact opposite. He's an equal opportunity president for hire.]