"Bush'bama'cain, There Is No War On Terror"

The United States can defeat al-Qaida if it relies less on force and more on policing and intelligence to root out the terror group's leaders, a new study contends.

"Keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," said the study by the federally funded Rand research center, an organization that counsels the Pentagon.

Its report said that the use of military force by the United States or other countries should be reserved for quelling large, well-armed and well-organized insurgencies, and that American officials should stop using the term "war on terror" and replace it with "counterterrorism."

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, the lead author of the study and a Rand political scientist.

"The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al-Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy," Jones said.

Nearly every ally, including Britain and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror" to describe strategy against the group headed by Osama bin Laden and considered responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 suicide attacks at the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon.

Based on an analysis of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, the report concluded that a transition to the political process is the most common way such groups end. But the process, found in 43 percent cases examined, is unlikely with al-Qaida, which has a broad, sweeping agenda, the report said.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end, seen in about 40 percent of the cases, is through police and intelligence services apprehending or killing key leaders, Jones said. Police are particularly effective because their permanent presence in cities helps them gather information, he said.

By contrast, the report said, military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases.

Jones, in an interview, said, "Even where we found some success against al-Qaida, in Pakistan and Iraq, the military played a background or surrogate role. The bulk of the action was taken by intelligence, police and, in some cases, local forces."

"We are not saying the military should not play a role," he said. "But unless you are talking about large insurgencies, military force should not be the tip of the spear."

Among the report's conclusions:

_Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups but none has achieved victory in the 38 years covered by the study.

_Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are more likely to be left-wing or nationalist, and much less likely to be motivated by religion.

_Large groups of more than 10,000 have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare for groups with 1,000 or fewer members.

The report described al-Qaida as a "strong and competent organization," both before and after 9-11. Its goals, the report said, are uniting Muslims to fight the United States and its allies, overthrowing regimes in the Middle East friendly to the West and establishing a pan-Islamic state, or caliphate.

In an article on American "weapons deals", Der Spiegel called Bin Laden "one of the CIA's best weapons customers." The Russian journal Demokratizatsiya has described U.S. support for the Afghan Mujahideen as "the model for state-sponsored terrorism." A BBC article on al-Qaeda claims, "some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA."

According to ABC News correspondent John K. Cooley, the Carter Administration allowed Sheik Abul Rahman, later revealed as one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to come to the U.S. to recruit Arab-Americans to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

Andrew Marshall, a journalist for The Independent newspaper describes the Al Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn - which raised money and trained foreign volunteers for Afghanistan - "a place of pivotal importance to Operation Cyclone, the American effort to support the mujahideen," and also the place where several of those "connected" with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were "recruited."

Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden

In conversation with former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American. This view is corroborated by Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, who when questioned by CNN's Larry King, divulged that Osama bin Laden was appreciative of his personal efforts in bringing the United States to Afghanistan to help him fight the Soviets.

Bandar bin Sultan: This is ironic. In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?

Larry King: How ironic. In other words, he came to thank you for helping bring America to help him.

Bandar bin Sultan: Right.

Besides bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the Afghan Mujahideen of the 1980s have been alleged to be the inspiration for terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia. Many of the Arab Mujahideen who gained combat experience in Afghanistan were later involved in terrorist acts against the U.S.

Monte Palmer, senior fellow at the al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, believes that "it now appears that the American-sponsored jihad in Afghanistan was the first step in transforming the jihadist movements of Egypt, Iran, and Pakistan into an international network capable of challenging the United States. A coalescing of the jihadist movement would have occurred with or without Afghanistan, but the Afghan experience accelerated this process by years if not decades."

   This blog, as well as many other voices, has made the point that the Bush Administration's military "War On Terror" against Al-Quada is the wrong way to fight international terrorist criminals. Barack Obama and John McCain are wholeheartedly committed to continue the Bush Administration's neoconservative military war against Al-Quada, despite the ineffectiveness of that approach. The evidence is compelling, in my opinion, that Osama Bin Ladin and Al-Quada, were initially CIA operatives in Afghanistan's war against communist Russia. Since the CIA created Al-Quada, let the CIA bring Al-Quada down. The billions of dollars spent on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would be better spent in using some of that money to provide tools and training for US law enforcement, security and intelligence forces in protecting America from international terrorists, instead of the neoconservative agenda of Middle East war and instability. In my opinion, Osama Bin Ladin and Al-Quada are used by war profiteers as an excuse to make war somewhere. America needs a President and a political party that will bring all US troops home from all foreign soil. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, as well as suspended GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul, are committed to American military non-interventionism. Word to the neoconservative trinity of George Bush, Barack Obama and JohnMcCain, there is no "War On Terror"! 

tags: war on terror  bush  barack obama  john mccain  politics  al quada  osama bin ladin  cia  war  warpeace  takebackamerica  neocons  international terrorists  obama  mccain  bob barr  chuck baldwin  ron paul  non interventionism  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit