Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VelociMorte
I agree with the author's assertion that what we need is a strategy "...similar to the strategy used to halt the insurgencies in El Salvador in the 1980's and Colombia in the 1990's. In those cases, these militias used local knowledge, unconstrained tactics and high levels of motivation to defeat insurgents..."
A Middle-Eastern version of "Los PEPES"...
Terrorists don't follow a rule book. We do, and the bad guys have read it. Our hands are tied, and they know it. We need to motivate a force of locals that have a stake in this game, and encourage them to covertly adopt the same tactics as the terrorists. Kill every fund-raiser, hate-preaching cleric, banker, friend, relative, business partner, and everyone associated with the terrorists. Shoot them, blow their houses up, booby-trap their cars....whatever it takes, then leave a sign around their necks describing who they are and what they did. Terrorize the terrorists. It's something they'll understand.
|
The Israeli's tried this with limited success and found themselves to be just as hated as the Palestinian bombers doing the same deed. Only difference is that the retaliations were carried out by Isreali fundementalists.
What stability has this brought to Colombia and El Salvador? If anything it let those without power feel less and less in control of their country, and those in power hungry for more. Those in power could strong-arm politicians and get their way through corruption.
Case in point, Pablo Escobar was elected (as a substitute) to Colombia's congress. He portrayed himself as a modern day Robin Hood. We all know how he really was.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eva05
Veloci,
As an American, I am vehemently against the tactics you are talking about.
I think they reek of fundamentalism and bloodlust. Targeting friends, relatives, etc. where does it end? How many people will you kill? Where do you draw the line between who gets killed at that point? Are not individuals responsible for their own actions?
If someone buys a rifle from a gun store, then goes and shoots up a office building is it the state's right to then go in, kill the man, his family, his friends, the gun shop owner, all the employees of the shop and all of their families? Or worse facilitate vigilante's to go and act on the state's agenda?
Are we trying to bring these people technocracy or are we bringing them more of the same with a different flag?
Brutality didn't work for the Russians in Afghanistan or Chechnya, it didn't work for the British in South Africa or the French in Algiers. I personally don't want the United States to be backing people who commit such activities, if for no other reason than it opens the doors for aspiring future Sadam Husseins to act on the behalf of the US and build more emnity against our country.
"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."
* Translation: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
* Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
This being said, I think the US needs to work with locals to develop a sustainable infrastructure where dissident voices can have representation and not feel that the only way to express themselves is through violence.
I am not naieve. After elections and I do not think that all violence will suddenly cease. It is a long process of education, economic development, and stripping all religious/cults figures out of the government process.
j
|
Well said, I do agree that more severe measures need to take place to ensure safety but outright slaughtering associates will get you nowhere fast. You'll only force those out that you intended to help because you're killing a fellow countryman, religiously same person, or any combo of things beyond your imagination. People inherently will associate themselves with others for comfort. This is done on all levels, financial standing, religion, looks, beliefs, etc.....