Prisoner Swaps

[Vagrant0]

I suspect, that if the US took a zero-tolerance to terrorists, and states that support them, went in and blew the crap out of the terrorists, where ever they happen to be found, regardless of territorial borders, and then DIDN'T throw billions down the toilet rebuilding said damage...... after a while, terrorism might lose some of its appeal. It would certainly lose some appeal for the states whose territory they were found in.... they might get a different idea about allowing them to remain, or giving them money..... But, that would be horribly politically INcorrect, and would never get approved as a policy.

Initially, maybe. But since we're talking about a group who already has an axe to grind with the West, and who isn't tied to any singular country, nationality, or really ideal, it becomes an entirely different matter. Taking a hardline stance with fanatics only makes them become more emboldened, fanatical, and spiteful, but it also makes them more prone to hiding deeper and easier to bolster their numbers with those who are newly threatened by the West. Have to remember, not all those who are living near these groups are particularly tied to those ideals beyond being geologically confined and needing to coexist. By threatening them just the same as actual terrorists, you force them to pick a side.

 

And then we have to include the actual governments... Who happen to be sitting pretty on most of the world's oil supply. Governments who currently allow terrorist groups within their respective countries because these groups are tied to core social groups and are "benefactors" of those governments. They cannot suddenly disavow these groups since it would cause civil wars and political backlash. Nor could they ignore the West bombing their cities or launching strikes within their territory just to kill a few terrorists. All the while, they have the world's oil supply hostage, making the push to alternative energy seem like a better and better idea as time goes by.

[HeyYou]

 

I suspect, that if the US took a zero-tolerance to terrorists, and states that support them, went in and blew the crap out of the terrorists, where ever they happen to be found, regardless of territorial borders, and then DIDN'T throw billions down the toilet rebuilding said damage...... after a while, terrorism might lose some of its appeal. It would certainly lose some appeal for the states whose territory they were found in.... they might get a different idea about allowing them to remain, or giving them money..... But, that would be horribly politically INcorrect, and would never get approved as a policy.

Initially, maybe. But since we're talking about a group who already has an axe to grind with the West, and who isn't tied to any singular country, nationality, or really ideal, it becomes an entirely different matter. Taking a hardline stance with fanatics only makes them become more emboldened, fanatical, and spiteful, but it also makes them more prone to hiding deeper and easier to bolster their numbers with those who are newly threatened by the West. Have to remember, not all those who are living near these groups are particularly tied to those ideals beyond being geologically confined and needing to coexist. By threatening them just the same as actual terrorists, you force them to pick a side.

 

And then we have to include the actual governments... Who happen to be sitting pretty on most of the world's oil supply. Governments who currently allow terrorist groups within their respective countries because these groups are tied to core social groups and are "benefactors" of those governments. They cannot suddenly disavow these groups since it would cause civil wars and political backlash. Nor could they ignore the West bombing their cities or launching strikes within their territory just to kill a few terrorists. All the while, they have the world's oil supply hostage, making the push to alternative energy seem like a better and better idea as time goes by.

 

Good Point. But, what's the alternative? There is no common ground for negotiation, there is no compromise to be reached. They will do as they will regardless. So, what should our response be?

[Gracinfields]

Best alternative is more and more black ops missions, silently picking off leadership via means that look accidental, or random act of violence. Something that can be explained away by using the simplest solution but leaving the more complex part in the dark. No missiles from drones, no squad of special forces that enter via chopper no gun battle, and that is for the leadership. For the small fry, like the bomb makers an "accidental" detonation of their explosive device while their assembling it, or transporting the explosive materials to their shop.

[Vagrant0]

Best alternative is more and more black ops missions, silently picking off leadership via means that look accidental, or random act of violence. Something that can be explained away by using the simplest solution but leaving the more complex part in the dark. No missiles from drones, no squad of special forces that enter via chopper no gun battle, and that is for the leadership. For the small fry, like the bomb makers an "accidental" detonation of their explosive device while their assembling it, or transporting the explosive materials to their shop.

I'm pretty sure we've tried that quite a bit during the Cold War and didn't accomplish much. Meanwhile we were also dealing with a government running their own covert missions which opened things for interrogation, prisoner transfers, and some level of discretion. With a terrorist group, any screw-up becomes front page news. If an agent is captured they are made public spectacle.

 

The reason why we've done such a piss-poor job at dealing with terrorism is that there are no simple solutions to deal with the double standards that exist. Terrorists can kill, behead, torture, or imprison anyone they want and they get cheered as soldiers of God. Meanwhile the government can't attack a single village without every bleeding heart getting into an uproar, or every idiot with a sign protesting the burial of American Soldiers. The US may be fighting the War on Terror, but most the people living there are just continuing their own ignorant entitled lives.

[Aurielius]

Best alternative is more and more black ops missions, silently picking off leadership via means that look accidental, or random act of violence. Something that can be explained away by using the simplest solution but leaving the more complex part in the dark. No missiles from drones, no squad of special forces that enter via chopper no gun battle, and that is for the leadership. For the small fry, like the bomb makers an "accidental" detonation of their explosive device while their assembling it, or transporting the explosive materials to their shop.

Our record in the stealthy non attributable assassination business is not too good. I have zero problem with overt assassination, in fact that sends a more potent message.

We should leave 'death cards' on the corpses in case they have any questions about who did it.

 

"A prince should not flinch from taking responsibility for violent acts in defense of the state"- Machiavelli

[Walker1940]

I have wondered what type of demands the Mexican government were making to us for return of the soldier that accidentally went in to Mexico. They kept him for several months.