"You mean I'm not as pretty as Marlon Brando?"
Posted on 07/29/2008 5:31:37 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON - The United States can defeat al-Qaida if it relies less on force and more on policing and intelligence to root out the terror group's leaders, a new study contends. [snip]
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, the lead author of the study and a Rand political scientist.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The success of the surge and the complete defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq by military means begs to differ, you over-educated pinhead...
'Nuff said.
And where did Seth serve in the Clinton administration?
[Talk about your failed policies of the past!!]
"You mean I'm not as pretty as Marlon Brando?"
By definition, I guess that's not the "Ayn" type.
And Monday morning QBing!
I guess this guy didn’t hear that the Surge is working. The problem with treating terrorists as criminals is that they get to go through our court system. Sorry, spending 4M+ on legal & incarceration costs per terrorist is a lot more expensive than a bullet.
“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism”
Obviously, a Hussein Obama supporter.
Al-Queda is being rooted out of Iraq doing the exact opposite.
“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals,......”
Tried that there Mr. Buck Jones. See Bill Clinton circa 1993. We got 3000+ of our citizens killed.
“........not holy warriors......”
That’s what they openly call themselves, idiot.
“and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism,”
Stupid and incomplete statement. It’s just one facet of a multi-pronged attack to cripple/destroy Islamic terrorism. Then you have intelligence gathering, infiltration and of course, “police” or law enforcement investigation. Fit the method to the situation at hand.
He says Mall Cops would be more effective than Special Forces.
As my late Eastern European-born Yiddische grandmother used to ask: "And from dis he makes a livink?"
I bet “Seth”... was against the A-bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well.
Our strategy is too simple for his complicated mind:
Kill them where we find them.
I think this is Rand Corp.’s way of letting the potential Obama administration know that they can deliver study results that support liberal think. After all, Rand is a contractor dependent on government funding for their livelihood. I have known some PhDs at Rand and they are not all conservative. Their politics and policy prescriptions span the political spectrum.
As long as there are swaths of lawless territory that is nominally under the control of our enemies (or dubious allies like Pakistan), then the "Law Enforcement Solution" will not work. If we go passive & expect Pakistan to utilize the intel that we pass to them then they will do just enough to make us think they are cooperating. The ISI is shot-thru with Al Qaeda sympathizers.
Now if we want to use this approach in Europe... fine. But don't expect it to work in areas full of failed states.
This is basic stuff. I can't believe the egg-heads at Rand don't realize it.
For these terrorists, the court room is merely another battlefield, I can recall Mousawi (the 19th hijacker) laughing at the court when he wasn’t given the death penalty.
This study is a shill for a 9/10 approach to terrorism, no more no less...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.