Spring Break
Different threats require different action
A progressive approach to the War on Terror
Jon Dougherty
Issue date: 10/9/08 Section: Opinion
Seven years after the attacks on 9/11, the Taliban regime remains active despite being deposed. After a long struggle against the legitimate government in Kabul, lieutenants of the Taliban leader Mullah Omar have entered into negotiations to end hostilities, and to notify the world of the group's severing of ties with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.
Earlier this week, the Saudi royal government, headed by King Abdullah, announced it was mediating talks between the Taliban leadership and the Afghani government to bring an end to fighting. Details are sketchy and results are impossible to predict, but based on the willingness of each side to negotiate, this may be an example to follow in our own "global war on terror."
The Taliban is willing to abandon ties to al Qaeda and work with the Afghani government because their ability to act has been severely curtailed, most notably through military action. Their leaders fear for their lives, and prefer their influence in this world to glory in the next. This shows that they can be talked to. They can be brought back from extremist ideas. This doesn't mean they will become our best friends or even agree with us on any major policy. But it may be an indication that their threat to us is being eliminated.
The standing doctrine of the Bush Administration has been to use military force to deny haven to, and then destroy, suspected terrorist organizations. The difficulty in achieving the goals of this mission lie in defining the nature of terrorists, the extent to which we are truly committed to a "global" eradication of terrorism and the relative inability of conventional, massed military forces to seek out and eliminate all those who would resort to terrorism as a means to achieve a goal.
Terrorism is a tactic of war, as well as an ideology held by groups who employ this tactic. One difficulty in eradicating it is that terrorists are not a group of people that we can simply kill or arrest to resolve the problem. Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare, war fought without the rules that countries have traditionally agreed upon, if not always uniformly followed. It is the choice of outnumbered, outgunned combatants against a superior force. Many times these attacks focus on civilian, symbolic and strategic targets. Terrorism is used to diminish an opponent's will to continue what can often be a long and endless fight.
Earlier this week, the Saudi royal government, headed by King Abdullah, announced it was mediating talks between the Taliban leadership and the Afghani government to bring an end to fighting. Details are sketchy and results are impossible to predict, but based on the willingness of each side to negotiate, this may be an example to follow in our own "global war on terror."
The Taliban is willing to abandon ties to al Qaeda and work with the Afghani government because their ability to act has been severely curtailed, most notably through military action. Their leaders fear for their lives, and prefer their influence in this world to glory in the next. This shows that they can be talked to. They can be brought back from extremist ideas. This doesn't mean they will become our best friends or even agree with us on any major policy. But it may be an indication that their threat to us is being eliminated.
The standing doctrine of the Bush Administration has been to use military force to deny haven to, and then destroy, suspected terrorist organizations. The difficulty in achieving the goals of this mission lie in defining the nature of terrorists, the extent to which we are truly committed to a "global" eradication of terrorism and the relative inability of conventional, massed military forces to seek out and eliminate all those who would resort to terrorism as a means to achieve a goal.
Terrorism is a tactic of war, as well as an ideology held by groups who employ this tactic. One difficulty in eradicating it is that terrorists are not a group of people that we can simply kill or arrest to resolve the problem. Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare, war fought without the rules that countries have traditionally agreed upon, if not always uniformly followed. It is the choice of outnumbered, outgunned combatants against a superior force. Many times these attacks focus on civilian, symbolic and strategic targets. Terrorism is used to diminish an opponent's will to continue what can often be a long and endless fight.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
jimbo327
posted 10/09/08 @ 10:57 AM EST
"The Taliban is willing to abandon ties to al Qaeda and work with the Afghani government because their ability to act has been severely curtailed, most notably through military action. (Continued…)
Mr. Jones
posted 10/09/08 @ 10:08 PM EST
Yes, the "Bush Doctrine." Let's not forget that he waited 3 weeks before taking any action in Afghanistan, allowing Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to plan their escapes. (Continued…)
jimbo327
posted 10/10/08 @ 8:36 AM EST
President Bush waited 3 weeks to allow the Taliban government of Afghanistan the opportunity to handle the situation prior to addressing it militarily. (Continued…)
Post a Comment