More on military solutions that work

Yesterday I blogged about the fact that, in Israel, the military solution is working against the Intifadah. Today, Roy Robison points out that the same is true in the war against Al Qaeda. (He also notes that there is no truth to the anti-War charge that the Bush Administration is so busy in Iraq that its ignored Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.) After describing the trap that is closing on Al Qaeda in the Tora Bora area, and the successful military tactics used to set and trigger this trap, Robison articulates the same conclusion the Israelis have discovered — against terrorists, who use the tools of war against us, it works to respond with bigger and better tools of war:

Despite liberals’ claims that al Qaeda terror cells are a bogey-man of the Bush Administration used to scare people to vote Republican, we can now see a direct case in which a terror cell was activated for a specific purpose: to save their jihadist buddies dying at Tora Bora.

The claim that fighting a terrorist is “giving them what they want” is one of the greatest fallacies of our time. When they attack us, it is for a specific purpose. When we do the exact opposite of what they want, they lose. They want us to disengage in the places they want to control, and then go home. Fighting them militarily, politically, economically, and diplomatically is the only way to defeat them. Giving in to them only makes them stronger.

On the playground, his conclusion would get a “Duh,” response because it’s obviously the way to treat aggressors.  In the real world of post-Colonial, post-Communist, multi-culti geopolitics, it’s no so obvious, and it’s great how clearly Robison has laid it out.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    If aggressive military action is working in Afghanistan then why is the mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzai seeking a negotiated settlement with the Taliban? Meanwhile, the Taliban has just unveiled its new Constitution for Afghanistan and rejected Karzai’s attempts at negotiations.

    “Mr Karzai’s calls for peace talks earlier this month were rejected by the Taliban, who called for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and the restoration of Islamic law.

    Mr Browne said on Monday that: “In Afghanistan, at some stage, the Taliban will need to be involved in the peace process because they are not going away any more than I suspect Hamas are going away from Palestine.”

    But one of the 110 articles of the Taliban’s constitution, which is bound as a 10 chapter booklet adorned with the Taliban insignia, stipulates that all other constitutions are void.

    President Karzai and the United Nations have stipulated that a key condition for peace talks is that the Taliban must accept the constitution that was signed by Mr Karzai in 2004.”

    This comes hot on the heels of a flurry of Al Qaeda video releases this month. Honestly, do you seriously believe the bizarre conclusions put forth in the articles you cite. I mean CIA analysts are saying that we are losing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, what little factual evidence is provided by your sources does not logically establish the far-reaching conclusions the authors make.

  2. says

    There’s more:

    KABUL, Afghanistan – Preying on a weak government and rising public concerns about security, the Taliban are enjoying a military resurgence in Afghanistan and are now staging attacks just outside the capital, according to Western diplomats, private security analysts, and aid workers.

    Of particular concern, private security and intelligence analysts said, is the new reach of the Taliban to the provinces ringing Kabul, headquarters for thousands of international security troops. Those troops are seeking to shore up the government of President Hamid Karzai, help stabilize the country, find Osama bin Laden, and rebuild a nation deeply scarred by almost three decades of warfare. So far, they have had only mixed success.

    “The Taliban ability to sustain fighting cells north and south of Kabul is an ominous development and a significant lapse in security,” said a recent analysis by NightWatch, an intelligence review written by John McCreary, a former top analyst at the US Defense Intelligence Agency.”

    then there’s this:

    “In a British radio interview (BBC), U.S. General Dan McNeill said NATO forces have had success this year in driving Taleban fighters from the valleys of Afghanistan’s southern Helmand province.

    But McNeill says the Afghan national security forces have not been as successful in holding the captured territory. He says there is a chance the Taleban could return to the area in coming months, forcing NATO troops to do the clearing work again.”

    And this:

    “KABUL (AFP) – A suicide bomber wearing an army uniform blew up a bus carrying Afghan soldiers in Kabul on Saturday, killing at least 31 people and wounding many others, the health and defence ministries said.

    Most of the dead military personnel were soldiers and officers going to work at the defence ministry but several passers-by were also believed to have been killed, officials and witnesses said.

    The insurgent Taliban movement claimed responsibility for the early morning attack, the deadliest in the city since a similar explosion on a police bus in June killed about 35 people.”

    I don’t know how to make this any more palatable to you, but what you are reading is pure propaganda. It is wishful thinking and little else. This is widely acknowledged by a broad range of military experts.

  3. says

    The Taliban not joining Karzai is a good thing. Their final extermination will have to wait until full military options are available for Pakistan and that won’t be until Iran shoots the gun.

  4. says

    The only people that need a “broad range of military experts” to bulk up the credibility of their analysis are individuals that cannot do military and socio-political analysis on their own. Vague and non-specific are not analytical tools, rather they are more akin to propaganda tools.

Leave a Reply