Rand: Knock Off The War On Terror Crap!

In a Rand study of 648 known terrorist groups from 1968 - 2006, forty-three percent are said to have met their end by joining the political process. However, another 40% met their end through police and/or intelligence services actions. Military action is said to have been successful only 7% of the time.

That sounds like a pretty simplistic analysis to me. If it was the worst 7% and they hadn't succumbed to other tactics, is that a bad thing? It isn't like we drop bombs all over every time there's a terrorist peaking up his head somewhere in the world.

And this below appears to validate action in Iraq, though that won't make it into the Democrat talking points sure to come from this. Define "full blown insurgency," Pakistan might like to know.

The RAND study says the military is too blunt an instrument for most counterterrorist missions, and is only effective, and only occasionally, when terrorists operate within the context of a full blown insurgency. Military power is too indiscriminate and can actually help terrorist recruitment by causing civilian casualties.

Yep, just what the doctor ordered to undermine Bush and McCain. Article at DOD Buzz. Rand link here.

The RAND study usefully knocks down some of the wilder assertions that have gained traction in the U.S. since the 9-11 attacks, such as claims that Al Qaeda poses an existential threat to the U.S., or that the specter of a pan-Islamic caliphate spanning the globe should actually be taken seriously. In reality, the data shows that Al Qaeda’s “probability of success in actually overthrowing any government is close to zero.” Al Qaeda has been rejected everywhere it has attempted to establish anything resembling a government. And because of the group’s indiscriminate killing of civilians, Al Qaeda’s list of enemies continues to grow. Religiously motivated terrorists fare far worse than those motivated by political grievances, according to RAND.

Comments

[Scrapiron]

Rand was once a well known trustworthy organization. Now it's a group of retarded liberals sitting around making sh*t up. What's up with that?

[chris]

Bad answer for dopey volunteers = retarded liberals. Why not go set fires in your spare time? Then you can put them out and feel important.

[SacTownMan]

Hey don't mind those jets crashing into the buildings over there! Nothing to see here, move along!

Please don't use the term Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists anymore. the new phrase is "Potential Barry Supporters".

We'll just take care of those pesky "Potential Barry Supporters" with a little talk, love and understanding. Barry will just use his community organizer skills and show them the light to the true "One". Or maybe we'll just pay some informants to turn on their mates. It shouldn't be any problem convincing a guy willing to blow himself up to simply take a little bribe instead, yea that might work, or maybe if we give them free health care they'll just feel better about themselves and have a "come to jesus moment".

Maybe we could just use the citizen soldiers Barry wants instead of those evil Marines. Yea, they could just sneak in and infiltrate the PBS's no problem. We'll teach em to say stuff like "Allah Akbar" and just submit a little and maybe they'll just leave us alone. And we will just promise not to use those Preditor drones on 'em anymore, that's so unfair to have some poor PBS walking down to the rocket launcher site and get blown-up like that.

With "think" tanks like Rand, Barry, Harry and Nancy "Big Eyes" on the job we'll be much better safer once we get rid of those military lovers.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- That sounds like a pretty simplistic analysis to me. If it was the worst 7% and they hadn't succumbed to other tactics, is that a bad thing? --"

That's quaint, but ultimately stupid. The report doesn't state that only 7% of terrorist organizations are dealt with by military action. It states that only 7% have been defeated by military action.

Organizations such as Hamas, Hezbellah, Al Qaeda, FARC rebels, Chinese Maoist radicals, Tamel Tigers, what have you have a 7% chance of being defeated if our response is to just bomb the living bajezzes out of them. If we engage them politically and seek to de-radicalize them at the peace table - as the Brits did with the IRA in the early nineties - we have a 43% success rate. If we take the dreaded Clinton "treat terrorism as a police problem" strategy that the GOP loves to fling around, we have a slightly more modest 40% success rate. You note how the New York mob doesn't quit have the same pull as it did decades back. We never needed to use UAVs or tanks or martial law against them.

"-- The RAND study says the military is too blunt an instrument for most counterterrorist missions, and is only effective, and only occasionally, when terrorists operate within the context of a full blown insurgency. Military power is too indiscriminate and can actually help terrorist recruitment by causing civilian casualties. --"

Wow. Really? A five year military campaign against a rebounding insurgency that has been only occasionally effective VALIDATES the Iraq War? That's definitely a creative way of reading the report.

Perhaps you'd have better luck just labeling the RAND organization a pack of Dirty Fucking Hippies and be done with it. They're desperately trying to pull the GOP out of the chasm it marked down in 2003. But don't let that stop you from driving ahead.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Say it out loud, morons: "John Kerry was right." Your bumper-sticker means of lining the pockets of defense contractors and Bush cronies (i.e. your masters) is a rank, expensive, never-ending failure. Of course St. McCain and the GOPers wants troops to stay in Iraq for 100 yeras: it gets his pals paid, which in turn makes him richer. You all want the same because what's good for your masters is good for you - trickle down theory.

It's funny. Smart, effective, less-costly ideas for solving problems are considered bad, while blunt stupidity and ineffectiveness is revered by the knuckle-draggers, as tough and American.

Alas, it's called "po-lice" work, meat balls. It's more complicated than making things go *boom*:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/scr_01.pdf

[ET]

--Wow. Really? A five year military campaign against a rebounding insurgency that has been only occasionally effective VALIDATES the Iraq War?--

LLame-o is consistently wrong on Iraq, just like his hero, the obamoron. But just keep beating that defeatist drum (wait...is that racist? are they African drums?). The election is Obama's to lose, and he is holding up his end of the bargain by exposing himslf as a fool. Enjoy the McCain Administration.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/what_if_iraq_works.html

[IslamoLlama]

We're winning!
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10961

[Thomas Jackson]

What a joke RAND has become. Does anyone believe that in the capitols of the Middle East the main threat to existing governments is the evil West or Islamic radicals? I bet Rand thought the Shah would continue in power and if overthrown would be replaced with a democratic form of government, in fact thats what they predicted in the Carter era.

Well at least their consistency remains constant.