You misunderstood me. The only deterrence that works is killing enough of them that they're no longer a threat. Not much different than state actors.
PMJI, guys, but you are both correct, after a fashion. As I follow these discussions on FR and elsewhere I am dismayed that so few people seem to be able to grasp the "big picture" we presently confront. I'm not referring specifically to you guys - your exchange simply provided an opportunity to interject a few observations.
So many doggedly seize on whichever narrow slice of reality relates to their agenda and completely ignore aspects which don't fit their template or storyline.
That's enough generalities - time for a few specifics about the reality we face:
1. There is a worldwide resurgence of radical, conquest-minded Islam. This is nothing new, but has occurred repeatedly over the last fourteen-hundred years. There are literally dozens of al Qaida-type terrorist organizations, those "non-state actors" - al Qaida is only one of many. Previously, however, they lacked access to WMDs.
2. These non-state actors may be inherently dangerous, and deterrence certainly doesn't work with them, but in order to rise above a deadly nuisance status they must have the support of nation-states and their governments. Those nation-states provide them with sanctuary, money, training facilities, diplomatic cover for travel, money-laundering, communications, etc. and access to the science, technology and precision fabrication capabilities necessary to acquire and deploy WMDs and WMD-level stockpiles of conventional weapons.
3. These sovereign nation-states are our enemies, but they understand perfectly that any direct attack on us will result in their destruction. The non-state terrorist groups serve as their proxies and provide them with plausible deniability for attacks on us.
4. No matter how many terrorists we kill there remains an almost inexhaustible supply of cannon-fodder for the terrorist groups and their nation-state puppet-masters to draw upon. We are playing the asymmetric-warfare version of "whack-a-mole" when we really need to "drain the swamp" by replacing the hostile nation-state regimes which aid and shelter them with regimes which won't. Killing Osama bin Laden and the entire al Qaida leadership won't end the threat - others will rise to fill the void as long as the hostile nation-state support system remains in place.
5. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the sources of the modern world-wide terrorist threat. Lesser players such as Pakistan, Syria, etc. are important, but Iran is the grand-daddy of modern Islamic terrorism (with Jimmy Carter as the midwife) since 1979, and the Saudis have followed closely by massively funding the ideological efforts via madrassas, etc. This is basic "Axis-Of-Evil" stuff, and it is real.
6. The point of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan was to set the stage for changing this reality by destabilizing and ultimately replacing these regimes and remaking the Middle East. Whether we kill Osama or Saddam Hussein specifically aided al Qaida in the 9/11 attacks is much less important to the overall solution to this threat than is disrupting and destroying the murderous clandestine network of nation-state/non-state players who are waging asymmetric warfare against the West. These hostile nation-states, when faced with destruction, are, unlike their terrorist proxies, amenable to deterrence.
And, in accomplishing this goal it is essential to remember that the dominant pieces in this global chess game of terror and conquest are the nation-states. They are the Knights, Bishops, Rooks and Queens, with Iran and Saudi Arabia as the Kings - the terrorist organizations, al Qaida included, are merely their pawns. Pawns which are expendable. To win the game, the war of civilization, we must checkmate the kings.
It truly bodes ill for Western civilization that our putative leaders and self-styled intelligentsia cannot honestly and forthrightly frame the issues and make the necessary arguments in our public discourse.
AQ, i.e., militant Islamic fundamentalism, is a global movemment. It is not like the Red Brigades, Tupamaros, Shining Path, etc. Moreover, AQ enjoyed state sponsorship/support from the likes of Afghanistan and to a less extent, Iran. The current surge of militant Islamic fundamentalism begain with the hijacking of the Iranian Revolution by Khomeini in 1979 and subsequent humiliation of the US for 444 days with the hostage crisis. The US hurried departure from Lebanon in 1983 with the bombing of the Marine barracks, the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Algeria, and the lack of a US response to repeated attacks over the 90s fed the aura and confidence of the Islamic fundamentalists who believed that the West could be defeated.
So far, AQ does not have access to WMD, at least they have no demonstrated that capability. We do know that they would have no compunction in using it. Unlike previous terrorist groups, AQ can be used as a surrogate by state sponsors like Iran who do not want to confront the West directly.
5. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the sources of the modern world-wide terrorist threat. Lesser players such as Pakistan, Syria, etc. are important, but Iran is the grand-daddy of modern Islamic terrorism (with Jimmy Carter as the midwife) since 1979, and the Saudis have followed closely by massively funding the ideological efforts via madrassas, etc. This is basic "Axis-Of-Evil" stuff, and it is real.
There are significant differences between the governments Iran and Saudi Arabia in terms of their support of terrorism. As I have indicated, the hijacking of the Iranian Revolution by Khomeini was a seminal event in the history of modern militant Islamic fundamentalism. It provided not only material support to groups like Hamas, but it also inspired Muslims elsewhere to rally to the cause.
The Saudis have funded madrassas and furthered the more conservative, fundamental view of Islam. Much of it was in reaction to the success of the Iranian Revolution and the fear that it would spread to the Kingdom, especially among the significant Sh'ia population of the Eastern Province. It was no accident that King Fahd changed his title in the 1980s to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques [places]. Saudi Arabia has two of the three holiest sites in Islam, Mecca and Medina. Over a million Muslims from around the globe come to the Kingdom every year to do the haj.
Unlike the Iranian government, the removal of the Saudi monarchy is the target of bin Laden and AQ. The Saudi government does not provide support to AQ. They don't want them to succeed in their objectives. The US had and continues to have a significant presence in Saudi Arabia. We have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. I could go on and on about the differences. Suffice it to say, I don't consider Saudi Arabia to be a state sponsor of terrorism.
I notice you left out Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Historically, I don't consider Afghanstan and Iraq to be "lesser players" in the support of terrorism. There are reasons why they were on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism for over a decade.
And, in accomplishing this goal it is essential to remember that the dominant pieces in this global chess game of terror and conquest are the nation-states. They are the Knights, Bishops, Rooks and Queens, with Iran and Saudi Arabia as the Kings - the terrorist organizations, al Qaida included, are merely their pawns. Pawns which are expendable. To win the game, the war of civilization, we must checkmate the kings.
It has been my position that the WOT cannot be won without regime change in Iran. That should be the objective. Again, I do no include Saudi Arabia as one of the "Kings" in terms of the WOT. They want regime change in Iran and the defeat of AQ as much as we do. Both of them pose a serious and immediate threat to the existence of the current Saudi government.
It truly bodes ill for Western civilization that our putative leaders and self-styled intelligentsia cannot honestly and forthrightly frame the issues and make the necessary arguments in our public discourse.
The big fear is that we make this into a religious war that will radicalize the billion plus Muslims in the world. Politicians tread lightly in how they describe the enemy and what needs to be done. It is obvious that Islamic fundamentalism is spreading throughout the world from Indonesia to Turkey. Our challenge is to marginalize the radical Islamic fringe and enlist the majority of Muslims to join our efforts.