The War On Terrorism

[NSR]

This war is a load of crap. Terrorism is an idea or a mental thought. It is not a physical thing that a war can be fought againist.

 

[RoccoR]

NSR, et al,

Well, that is not exactly true.

Your Intelligence Community (IC) is at forefront of that fight, using human and technical collection resources, all-source analysis, and covert action to protect America from further violence, threats of violence, intimidate or coercion, instilling fear and submission - for political, military, economic, or theological purposes (among others) and gains.

The phrasing, "War on Terrorism" is the conceptual theme; similar to the "War on Poverty." Yes, there will be childlike literalism (stuck on the word "war") that cannot make the intellectual leap. And maybe the Administration should have hired a Madison Avenue advertising firm to come-up with something better; but, politicians (being who they are) are not always brilliant enough to come-up with an original theme.

This war is a load of crap. Terrorism is an idea or a mental thought. It is not a physical thing that a war can be fought againist.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism is a "tactic" that is planned and premeditated, generally focused against noncombatant (disassociated civilian) targets by subnational groups or clandestine resources.

You are half right in that; by definition, it is a tactical thought that is executed.

Tactical thoughts come from people, the source. And that is a package that can be detected, exploited and neutralized.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Gardener]

The war isn't a load of cr@p, it has simple been misnamed.

The war is a war against Islamists, and it is one we could lose if we fail to learn about the ideology that drives them, and the methods they use in pursuit of their goals.

 

[gunner]

This war is a load of crap. Terrorism is an idea or a mental thought. It is not a physical thing that a war can be fought againist.

All terrorism has a military side. We, are simply confronting the military side of Islamic fundamentalism.

Paul

 

[RoccoR]

gunner, et al,

While it is not entirely true, although one can make some very interesting correlations; there are some military aspects.

All terrorism has a military side. We, are simply confronting the military side of Islamic fundamentalism.

(COMMENT)

Not all terrorist activities have a "military" component, even though it might look like it on face value. Most have a structured hierarchy, and a disciplined organizational foundation; and most all evolve in similar ways.

How you evaluate a threat depends (to a great degree) on the way our government assigns anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism duties. In the last five decades, we've done a very poor job. It would probably be more properly stated that the the more elaborate terrorist organizations have a paramilitary or irregular force, in addition to a agenda driven political arm; and there is an associate role for our military to address.

With the lack of intelligence investment, the military, for the most part, stopped making any distinction between national and tactical/operational intelligence capabilities. Today, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), the Combatant Commanders, and the services essentially presume that the DCI will provide the tactical intelligence they need to conduct military operations. This reliance on national systems threatens not only military operational capabilities, but also our overall strategic national security posture.

Larry C. Kindsvater, former Executive Director for Intelligence Community Affairs, CIA.
http://www.cia.gov/c.../article03.html

AND​

In part, this is due to changes in the stability of many regions and relationships that
tend to involve armed entities and are a byproduct of a less polarized but more unstable world. For this reason, it is easy to see why much of the emphasis within the IC on SMO and "support to the warfighter" currently carries the day in terms of resource priority and focus. However, although DoD may be the active arm of many of the Nation's policy initiatives today, most if not all of these initiatives began with some level of diplomatic effort, calling into question whether "support to the diplomat" might be a more critical pursuit.

And:​

This is not to say that the IC and the military should not prepare for military conflict. But this cannot be the sole focus, to the detriment of diplomacy, deterrence and force preponderance -- all of which also require IC support.

IC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century
http://www.access.gp...21/ic21011.html

AND​

"To defeat terrorists will require ¯our human intelligence and counterintelligence organizations to engage in clever, risky, exceptional intelligence operations that may enable us to see inside the terroristsˆcabal, to know in advance what their plans and intentions might be and to act to interdict or to preclude the terrorists from acting,˜ Hughes said. The three-star general said the new task of defeating terrorists will not be easy and many within the U.S. Intelligence, security and law enforcement communities are working hard on the problem. ¯I was one of them,˜ he said. ¯We had the intent to succeed but we did not succeed. Why? We did not have the collective will to do the right thing. That sort of failure can no longer be tolerated.

Everyone seems to understand that there are big problems within the IC, relative to the dis-unified way these threats are addressed, the IC membership does not always agree on approaches and methods of operations. This is particularly true internally within DOD. But that is another discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R