Stinger said:
We may lose this war against terrorist. If we do it will be due to the campaign to destroy our will to carry it out. If the unwilling win, and we pull out then the terrorist win.
I think that what you're prob'l referring to as "the campaign to destroy our will" is someone's fantastical invention. But, as this pertains to what
you may or may not be thinking, I'm prone to be wrong.
I think that the keys to success or lack of success are here in this snippet of a
Rumsfeld memo:
Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
The crucial issue is how to deal with those who no longer persuadable and who have already become commmitted to terroristic acts in such a way that we don't alienate those who are friendly or moderate and so that we don't fuel the recruiting fires of the recent mushrooming of Islamist, terrorist organizations around the world.
If we lose, it's more likely to be because we helped radicalize more people than we deterred, radicalized more people than we persuaded, and radicalized more people than we rendered harmless.
...
[The GWoT] focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.
[General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."
The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.
These methods are more efficient, more bang for our bucks, than martial options. As Rumsfeld noted, cost is an issue. Of course, these things don't have much effect on those who are already radicalized and violent- the bullets are for those folks. The issue is to cut-off the terrorists' reinforcements. Hearts and minds is an essential objective. We cannot succeeed without achiveing this objective.
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication“Strategic communication requires a sophisticated method … … [it] will build on in depth knowledge of other cultures and factors that motivate human behavior. It will adapt techniques of skillful political campaigning … It will engage in a respectful dialogue of ideas that begins with listening and assumes decades of sustained effort.
“[Global] opinions must be taken into account when [US] policy options are considered and implemented.
“The Task Force recommends that the President issue a directive to: (a) strengthen the U.S. Government’s ability to understand global public opinion, advise on the strategic implications of policymaking, and communicate with global audiences ...
“The strategic environment has changed radically since the October 2001 Task Force report. We face a war on terrorism, intensified conflict within Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility and ways the U.S. pursues its goals.
"The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective ... But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists ...
• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.
• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah ... to broad public support.
• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.
Defense Science Board's
Transition to and from HostilitiesAs in the past, the events in Iraq have also served to emphasize that religious and cultural motivations are crucial in determining human behavior. The only way to understand the motivations of an opponent is by having a real understanding of the historical and religious framework that has molded his culture. It is clear that Americans who waged the war and who have attempted to mold the aftermath have had no clear idea of the framework that has molded the personalities and attitudes of Iraqis. Finally, it might help if Americans and their leaders were to show less arrogance and more understanding of themselves and their place in history. Perhaps more than any other people, Americans display a consistent amnesia concerning their own past, as well as the history of those around them.
