Treat terrorism like crime, not war

[AUUSN 823]

"The post-9/11 security environment has been dominated by the spectre of terrorism mostly, if not exclusively, of the Islamic-inspired sort.

In many liberal democracies the response to the threat of this type of extremist violence has been the promulgation of a raft of anti-terrorism laws and organisational changes in national security agencies, the sum total of which has been an erosion of civil liberties in the pursuit of better security.

Some have gone so far as to speak of a 'war' on terrorism, arguing that Islamist terrorism in particular is an existential threat to Western societies that demands the prioritisation of security over individual and collective rights.

Although ideological extremists see themselves as being at war, this response on the part of democratic states, and the characterisation of the fight against terrorism as a 'war' marshaled along cultural or civilizational lines, is mistaken.

The proper response is to see terrorism not in ideological terms, with the focus on the motivation of the perpetrators, but in criminal terms, where the focus is on the nature of the crime. Those who practice terrorism can then be treated as part of a violent criminal conspiracy much like the Mafia or international drug smuggling syndicates. This places the counter-terrorism emphasis on the act rather than the motivation, thereby removing arguments about cause and justification from the equation.

There is no reason for Western democracies to go to war.

Whatever its motivation, terrorism poses no existential threat to any stable society, much less liberal democracies. Only failed states, failing states and those at civil war face the real threat of takeover from the likes of the Islamic State or al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. For Western democracies under terrorist attack, the institutional apparatus of the state will not fall, society will not unravel and the social fabric will not tear. The consent of the majority will be maintained. If anything, the state and society will coalesce against the perpetrators.

But there is a caveat to this: both the democratic state and society must beware the 'sucker ploy'.

Terrorism is a weapon of the weak that is not only a form of intimidation but a type of provocation as well. Terrorist attacks against defenceless targets may be designed to punish or retaliate against the larger society, but they are also attempting to lure the target into taking security measures out of proportion to the threat. In other words, the weaker party commits an atrocity or outrage in order to provoke an overreaction from the stronger subject, in this case Western liberal democracies.

The overreaction victimises the group from which the perpetrators are thought to come, and thus legitimises the grievances of the terrorists. Thus the democratic state plays into the hands of terrorists by expanding their struggle and providing grounds for recruitment. When democratic societies, panicked by fear, begin to retaliate against domestic minority populations from whence terrorists are believed to emanate, then the sucker ploy will have proven successful.

The sucker ploy has been at the core of al Qaeda's strategy from the beginning.

Enunciated by Osama bin Laden, the idea behind the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, then the Bali, Madrid and London bombings, was to cause the West to overreact by scapegoating all Muslims and subjecting them to security checks, mass surveillance, warrantless searches and arrest, and detention without charge. With the majority supporting such moves, Muslim minorities in the West become further alienated, reinforcing the al Qaeda narrative that the West is at war with the entire Muslim world.

Bin Laden and his acolytes hoped would generate a global conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the US and UK duly obliged by using 9/11 as one of the pretexts for invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with the events of that day and which had no Islamic extremists operating within it at the time. It does now.

After the possibility of staging spectacular large-scale attacks like 9/11 became increasingly difficult due to Western countermeasures, al Qaeda 2.0 emerged. Its modus operandi, as repeatedly outlined and exhorted by the online magazine Inspire, is to encourage self-radicalised jihadists born in the West to engage in low-level, small cell (2-5 people) or so-called 'lone wolf' attacks by single individuals on targets of opportunity using local knowledge of the cultural and physical terrain in which they live.

In recent years the Syrian civil war and rise of the ISIS have given recruits the opportunity to sharpen their knowledge of weaponry, tactics and combat skills with an eye towards future use at home. With reportedly 15,000 foreign fighters joining Syrians and Iraqis in the ISIS ranks and a number of Westerners gravitating towards al Qaeda, there are plenty of returning jihadists to be concerned about, especially given the availability of soft targets in open societies." http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/01/30/treat-terrorism-like-crime-not-war.aspx

[homersapien 11,367]

I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that our response to terrorism should be from a crime perspective. In fact, always have.

I think this article proves presents a reasoned case for that approach. The military is always available as required, but to define the problem as one of "war" almost requires you let the military determine strategy. Better to let intelligence and LEO lead the effort and call on the military as a resource.

This is in no way a criticism of our military. But until we re-think it, their job is to fight wars. And like the old saying goes, "if you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail".

[autigeremt 6,599]

Tell that to the citizens who die at the hands of these radical ideologs. Nit agreeing or disagreeing with the post.....just offering a little reality to the story.

I think this is a war.....not criminal activity. Police forces won't stop this movement. It will take strategic, cooridinated teamwork using various assets to minimize its hold around the globe. The spread of radical extremists is real and growing.

[homersapien 11,367]

Tell that to the citizens who die at the hands of these radical ideologs. Nit agreeing or disagreeing with the post.....just offering a little reality to the story.

I think this is a war.....not criminal activity. Police forces won't stop this movement. It will take strategic, cooridinated teamwork using various assets to minimize its hold around the globe. The spread of radical extremists is real and growing.

Not sure what the relevance is of the first sentence. I am not advocating we arrest terrorists, I think we should kill them.

But we turned it into a "war" on 9-11. I'd say things have gotten worse for the most part. Every terrorist attack has been designed to make a statement and evoke a reaction. We've given them what they want.

[AURaptor 1,122]

A most idiotic way of dealing w/ a very real threat.

ISIS isn't merely a gang , but a full blown military threat. Should be treated as such.

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

If terrorism is treated strictly as a crime, then doesn't that prohibit military resources from being used to combat it? (Posse Comitatus, etc.) Also, we weren't "at war" with terrorism prior to 9/11, right? Yet, we still had terrorist acts being committed. So, it's somewhat an academic argument.

[autigeremt 6,599]

Tell that to the citizens who die at the hands of these radical ideologs. Nit agreeing or disagreeing with the post.....just offering a little reality to the story.

I think this is a war.....not criminal activity. Police forces won't stop this movement. It will take strategic, cooridinated teamwork using various assets to minimize its hold around the globe. The spread of radical extremists is real and growing.

Not sure what the relevance is of the first sentence. I am not advocating we arrest terrorists, I think we should kill them.

But we turned it into a "war" on 9-11. I'd say things have gotten worse for the most part. Every terrorist attack has been designed to make a statement and evoke a reaction. We've given them what they want.

They turned it into a war on 9/11. Not us.

[japantiger 4,051]

I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that our response to terrorism should be from a crime perspective. In fact, always have.

I think this article proves a reasoned case for that approach. The military is always available as required, but to define the problem as one of "war" almost requires you let the military determine strategy. Better to let intelligence and LEO lead the effort and call on the military as a resource.

This is in no way a criticism of our military. But until we re-think it, their job is to fight wars. And like the old saying goes, "if you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail".

This article doesn't "prove" anything. It's also logically inconsistent.

If terrorism is treated strictly as a crime, then doesn't that prohibit military resources from being used to combat it? (Posse Comitatus, etc.) Also, we weren't "at war" with terrorism prior to 9/11, right? Yet, we still had terrorist acts being committed. So, it's somewhat an academic argument.

Yep. What this article is really concerned about is labeling the bad guys. "This places the counter-terrorism emphasis on the act rather than the motivation, thereby removing arguments about cause and justification from the equation." It's OK to kill them; just don't kill them in the name of fighting radical Islam.

Let's see; I can see that State Dept spokelady on the news saying "we conducted summary executions in the field today for people caught in the act of committing a man-caused disaster". But, if it's a crime and not a war; then it wouldn't be her; would it. It would be someone from the DOJ conducting the new conference talking about how US Law Enforcement officials conducted air-strikes against criminal elements in Iraq and Syria. Hhmmm, that doesn't sound right....US Law Enforcement doesn't act overseas where the bad guys get weapons and training and take territory...So, I guess of course you could just do nothing until they do something here? That worked out great on 9-11. Let me see; law enforcement failed to deport 19 men who were here on expired visa's and they just committed another little crime...just a little case of murder; 3000 counts; sort of like living in Chicago for 6 months....I mean come on; we can take that can't we? OK, they suggested doing the same thing we used against the Mob...we could get ISIS on the RICO statutes? Better yet, get them for Tax Evasion...the damn IRS will get anyone...it could work!

Just because someone wrote 1000 words, doesn't make it a serious piece.

[WarTim 3,456]

Islamic TERRORIST!! I and many millions WILL call it what it IS. We must kill them where they are before MORE of them come here. Our allies will get on board only when we have a Leader in charge. That day is coming. I pray for the safety of our Country and it's citizens in the mean time.

[WarTim 3,456]

I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that our response to terrorism should be from a crime perspective. In fact, always have.

I think this article proves a reasoned case for that approach. The military is always available as required, but to define the problem as one of "war" almost requires you let the military determine strategy. Better to let intelligence and LEO lead the effort and call on the military as a resource.

This is in no way a criticism of our military. But until we re-think it, their job is to fight wars. And like the old saying goes, "if you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail".

This article doesn't "prove" anything. It's also logically inconsistent.

If terrorism is treated strictly as a crime, then doesn't that prohibit military resources from being used to combat it? (Posse Comitatus, etc.) Also, we weren't "at war" with terrorism prior to 9/11, right? Yet, we still had terrorist acts being committed. So, it's somewhat an academic argument.

Yep. What this article is really concerned about is labeling the bad guys. "This places the counter-terrorism emphasis on the act rather than the motivation, thereby removing arguments about cause and justification from the equation." It's OK to kill them; just don't kill them in the name of fighting radical Islam.

Let's see; I can see that State Dept spokelady on the news saying "we conducted summary executions in the field today for people caught in the act of committing a man-caused disaster". But, if it's a crime and not a war; then it wouldn't be her; would it. It would be someone from the DOJ conducting the new conference talking about how US Law Enforcement officials conducted air-strikes against criminal elements in Iraq and Syria. Hhmmm, that doesn't sound right....US Law Enforcement doesn't act overseas where the bad guys get weapons and training and take territory...So, I guess of course you could just do nothing until they do something here? That worked out great on 9-11. Let me see; law enforcement failed to deport 19 men who were here on expired visa's and they just committed another little crime...just a little case of murder; 3000 counts; sort of like living in Chicago for 6 months....I mean come on; we can take that can't we? OK, they suggested doing the same thing we used against the Mob...we could get ISIS on the RICO statutes? Better yet, get them for Tax Evasion...the damn IRS will get anyone...it could work!

Just because someone wrote 1000 words, doesn't make it a serious piece.

This type of wannabe "journalist" likes to read their own words. Much bluster without a factual point.

[caleb1633 1,418]

It is a war, however the way we must fight it depends on the threat. For the Taliban, they are criminals. They get the majority of their funding from drugs and foreign entities. They're a subversive threat that operates similar to that of organized crime in the US, but will still engage in military action. Therefore to fight a 'war' against them, we should, and have for the last 5 years or so, use a crime-fighting approach.

ISIS is different. I'm not sure if any of you are familiar with Mao Zedong's 3 phase approach to Guerilla Warfare but it's like this:

Phase 1. Organization, consolidation and preservation of base areas, usually in difficult and isolated terrain.

Phase 2. Progressive expansion by terror and attacks on isolated enemy units to obtain arms, supplies and political support.

Phase 3. Decision, or destruction of the enemy in battle.

The Taliban operate to the left and right of Phase 2. With ISIS, although originally it was more of a most dangerous course of action than a most likely, they are at Phase 3 and will have to be engaged by military forces. A crime-fighting approach for them would be like sending the LAPD to fight at Normandy.

[WarTim 3,456]

It is a war, however the way we must fight it depends on the threat. For the Taliban, they are criminals. They get the majority of their funding from drugs and foreign entities. They're a subversive threat that operates similar to that of organized crime in the US, but will still engage in military action. Therefore to fight a 'war' against them, we should, and have for the last 5 years or so, use a crime-fighting approach.

ISIS is different. I'm not sure if any of you are familiar with Mao Zedong's 3 phase approach to Guerilla Warfare but it's like this:

Phase 1. Organization, consolidation and preservation of base areas, usually in difficult and isolated terrain.

Phase 2. Progressive expansion by terror and attacks on isolated enemy units to obtain arms, supplies and political support.

Phase 3. Decision, or destruction of the enemy in battle.

The Taliban operate to the left and right of Phase 2. With ISIS, although originally it was more of a most dangerous course of action than a most likely, they are at Phase 3 and will have to be engaged by military forces. A crime-fighting approach for them would be like sending the LAPD to fight at Normandy.

LOL. Great comparison...

[homersapien 11,367]

I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that our response to terrorism should be from a crime perspective. In fact, always have.

I think this article proves a reasoned case for that approach. The military is always available as required, but to define the problem as one of "war" almost requires you let the military determine strategy. Better to let intelligence and LEO lead the effort and call on the military as a resource.

This is in no way a criticism of our military. But until we re-think it, their job is to fight wars. And like the old saying goes, "if you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail".

This article doesn't "prove" anything. It's also logically inconsistent.

Correct. I should have used presents. Sort of a "mental typo". Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

As far as being "logically inconsistent", that's just your opinion which is worthless without an supporting argument.

[AUUSN 823]

I hope people here realize that counter terrorism is not a DoD mission. It belongs to the National Counter Terrorism Center which falls under the Director of National Intelligence. The enforcement arm is the CIA. You didnt think those Drone strikes belonged to DoD? Our approach to this threat needs to evolve. It's not 2001 anymore.

[caleb1633 1,418]

That is incorrect. The DOJ, DOD (so the Geographic Combatant Commands and USSOCOM), DHS, DOS, Department of Treasury, National Counterterrorism Center, and the National Joint Terrorism Task Force each share a role in combating terrorism.

Source: JP 3-26, Counterterrorism

[AURaptor 1,122]

I hope people here realize that counter terrorism is not a DoD mission. It belongs to the National Counter Terrorism Center which falls under the Director of National Intelligence. The enforcement arm is the CIA. You didnt think those Drone strikes belonged to DoD? Our approach to this threat needs to evolve. It's not 2001 anymore.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[homersapien 11,367]

I hope people here realize that counter terrorism is not a DoD mission. It belongs to the National Counter Terrorism Center which falls under the Director of National Intelligence. The enforcement arm is the CIA. You didnt think those Drone strikes belonged to DoD? Our approach to this threat needs to evolve. It's not 2001 anymore.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WTF?

[autigeremt 6,599]

That is incorrect. The DOJ, DOD (so the Geographic Combatant Commands and USSOCOM), DHS, DOS, Department of Treasury, National Counterterrorism Center, and the National Joint Terrorism Task Force each share a role in combating terrorism.

Source: JP 3-26, Counterterrorism

Thank you!

[autigeremt 6,599]

It is a war, however the way we must fight it depends on the threat. For the Taliban, they are criminals. They get the majority of their funding from drugs and foreign entities. They're a subversive threat that operates similar to that of organized crime in the US, but will still engage in military action. Therefore to fight a 'war' against them, we should, and have for the last 5 years or so, use a crime-fighting approach.

ISIS is different. I'm not sure if any of you are familiar with Mao Zedong's 3 phase approach to Guerilla Warfare but it's like this:

Phase 1. Organization, consolidation and preservation of base areas, usually in difficult and isolated terrain.

Phase 2. Progressive expansion by terror and attacks on isolated enemy units to obtain arms, supplies and political support.

Phase 3. Decision, or destruction of the enemy in battle.

The Taliban operate to the left and right of Phase 2. With ISIS, although originally it was more of a most dangerous course of action than a most likely, they are at Phase 3 and will have to be engaged by military forces. A crime-fighting approach for them would be like sending the LAPD to fight at Normandy.

Very true! Great post.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

caleb1633....nice to someone here with credible facts rather than a lot of narcissist bluster.

[caleb1633 1,418]

Funny, because that's usually all I have to offer in the football forums lol.

[AUUSN 823]

That is incorrect. The DOJ, DOD (so the Geographic Combatant Commands and USSOCOM), DHS, DOS, Department of Treasury, National Counterterrorism Center, and the National Joint Terrorism Task Force each share a role in combating terrorism.

Source: JP 3-26, Counterterrorism

You are correct and I didnt make my point clearly. JSOC is an enforcement arm in counterterrorism. But because of their MFP11 powers, I wouldnt count them as regular DoD.

[homersapien 11,367]

caleb1633....nice to someone here with credible facts rather than a lot of narcissist bluster.

"narcissist bluster"? That's weird.

And while I also appreciate caleb for offering up facts, the premise of this thread is not to present facts but to propose a different way of considering the problem.

Actually, the "protocol" that caleb presents is not inconsistent with that premise.

[WarTim 3,456]

caleb1633....nice to someone here with credible facts rather than a lot of narcissist bluster.

Amen