It's about feeding a massive and growing military industrial complex...
Rights and wrongs of Asia's 'war on terror'
By Michael Vatikiotis
SINGAPORE - If there is one lesson to be learned from the "war against terror" as it has been waged in Southeast Asia, it is that good intelligence and careful police work rather than brute military force are the best counter-terrorism strategy. And some of the best police work has been conducted in Indonesia, where many so-called terror experts once believed the government would be least effective in countering the terrorist threat.
My favorite part...
Careful intelligence
In Indonesia, meanwhile, careful intelligence has helped pinpoint bomb-making centers in remote corners of Java and uncovered explosives and equipment that could have been used in terrorist attacks. Many of those groomed by JI's alleged al-Qaeda-trained operatives to carry out these attacks have been flushed out and captured or killed. Importantly, Indonesia has tried wherever possible to use legal methods of interdiction, bringing suspects into custody with the intention of putting them on trial, and using lethal force only if unavoidable. (More...)
Robert Anton Wilson in Prometheus Rising cited the work of an anthropologist (who's name escapes me at the moment) who had noticed civilization's westward trend in knowledge and power, from China to Rome to Britain to the U.S..
2 comments:
I'm not sure I get the point. Cutting off supplies to rebels living in the jungle may prevent guerilla attacks, but it won't help in Iraq. In Iraq, I think, the bad guys just live in slums. At night they sneak around, kidnap people, and plant bombs. During the day the walk into groups of peaceful workers and blow themselves up. I'm sure there's a curfew. So how would this Indonesian approach help?
First, re-read the whole article.
Also, I fear you've been duped into believing that our involvement in Iraq somehow has something to do with fighting agents that employ terror. The only correlation is that it gives a perceived proof to those who recruit more agents that there cause is just.
The point is that agents that act by using terror operate more as organized crime rather than a military force. Therefore, a massive military interdiction is the wrong response.
Also regardless of terrain, jungle or otherwise, enemy elements engaged in guerrilla/insurgent activity are able to easily conceal themselves in close proximity to any established force. Again, another bad/incompetent move to have a large established force anywhere without multiple layers of buffer between them and the threat (emphasis on large).
Third, and most importantly, elements that utilize terror are now in Iraq but predominantly we're fighting homegrown insurgents that really are just pissed off having some western nation come and tell them how to run their lives.
THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN AL-Quaeda and the Hussein regime. Hussein was a secular despot that had done business with the U.S. and the Soviets, Al-Quaeda is an idea that we've chosen use to represent a rather informal network of homicidal ideologues through out the Arab, Persian, and SE Asian world.
In Indonesia they've relatively successfully addressed the issue by using powerful anti-crime techniques. The whole American understanding of the situation is wrong and has been distorted by those that would retain power.
I say this as someone who has done intel/security for a living with the armed forces.
Post a Comment