Anti-terrorism alliance

Has anyone hear the idea of the founding of a new "anti-terrorism alliance" discussed before?

Not a regional alliance like Nato or a combined observational force like the UN, but something like a treaty of nations with a shared interest in stomping out terrorist camps and providing support to secular forces in countries such as Pakistan which have a good shot at becoming secular democracies if only they had the strength to survive the onslaught of terrorism that would result in moves to solidify their control over the government and military.

It's too costly for the US to play world police forever, alone. But with the proper mandates, a roving international force could tackle much larger problems at less cost.

It will play into the hands of the terrorists. The problem, especially with green terrorism (Islam) and Red terrorism (Marxist/Leninist/Maoist) is that their success hinges on the destruction of the nation-state concept. As a nation-state, every country is threatened with the risk of dissolving to cater to narrower interests - be they of the religious variety or of socio-ideological ones.

If a sub-set of nations form an anti-terrorist alliance, it takes on the same objective as the terrorists. The alliance will go after terrorists everywhere, no matter where they rest. This in effect means disrespecting the principle of a nation-state because the states which “harbor the terrorist” or are the sites of their training and planning terrorist attacks aren’t necessarily for or against the terrorists as a rule.

I’ll give you an example. Belgium just arrested 11 terrorists. If hypothetically, it was not part of the alliance, would the countries of the alliance go into Belgium to extricate the terrorists? Most unlikely. They would instead share intelligence and ask the Belgian police to go after them (which is probably what happened). This approach is reasonably effective as the world stands today and an alliance or an organization is unnecessary - it simply adds management overheads. If the same was Pakistan, even if it would be part of the alliance, the scenario would pan out differently but more likely because the civilian government has no control over large swathes of the country and the military is pro-terrorist. The approach in such a case would have to be different - one of go in and get them yourself. All the money that we’re throwing down the UN’s throat should pay for an anti-terrorist course of action without really an alliance.

Besides, how do you classify a “terrorist”? Today, I don’t think the world unanimously agrees with the definition of the term. Ahmedinejad to me is a Terrorist sponsor. To Iran, he is their president.

The solution is not an “Anti Terrorist Alliance” but more of an “Aligned strategic interests alliance”. And these kind of alliances have been forged since prehistory, so we will offer nothing new.

Sorry, it wasn’t a news item (is this forum just for news posting) — just my idea.

It just seems like an obvious thing to do. If India were part of such an alliance, and the tug-of-war between secular and religious forces in Pakistan happened to favor secular leaders at the time, they might be able to call in an international force to help keep the peace while palettes of whoop ass are deployed to ungoverned regions.

An “alliance”-branded multi-national force wouldn’t be as helpful to terrorist recruitment as a formal US invasion force, but functionally, a mix of “peace keepers” and covert forces could accomplish the same thing.

Thanks for your reply — I agree with all your points. However, this would be a more exclusive treaty. Palestine doesn’t need to be accepted because they will define Israel as a terrorist nation, and then we have another U.N.

Of course Britain and the US can’t just form an alliance and use that as justification to invade Iran, but maybe such an alliance could be constructed just the right way to target terrorists in Pakistan (which is probably everyone’s top priority).

I think there is enough secular DNA in Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership for some window of opportunity to be created when they might accept some language that opens the door to cooperation.

For Pakistan, the solution does not involve the military. Their raison d’etre used to be “Hate India” and then after 9/11, it was to play both sides - work with the US to cut off the hands and legs of terrorism (the useless brainwashed foot soldiers of Islam) and on the other side, to keep the brains of the operations alive and well-fed so that they can regenerate those lost arms and legs.

A secular, liberal Pakistan that is in peace with India means that the country will not need to invest much money in its armed forces which means that one day, the fiefdom that the Pakistani military has built in Pakistan will be questioned and the civil society will start chiselling away at what has been the luxuries enjoyed by the armed forces. To keep the current status quo: be it a radicalized population or a tense relationship with India serves only one interest group. The Pakistani army (and its stooges in the ISI which is more like an elites’ club of the army). In short peace means that the army loses its relevance-so it will never quite be that peaceful.

To really have peace in the region, the Pakistani army must be neutralized. For that to happen, Pakistan needs to be broken up. The reason for that being - the upper echelon of the Paki army is populated by the Punjabis. Their control of the country has already pissed off the Sindhis in the south and the Baluch in the south west. Take away these 2 regions and you have Punjab and the shit holes of the NWFP-Waziristan-Pak Occupied Kashmir. Reduced to its bare basics, there will be very little of a fief left to fight for and the Pakistani army will have no option but to comply. Nobody among the whisky-drinking elite in the Pakistani army care to have anything to do with any of the rag-tag footsoldiers that these other areas produce. Cut off sea access, they will need to behave if they want an economy or anything remotely resembling it in Pakistan.

From what you said, it sounds like Pakistan’s military has two things going for it: the people’s need for it to continually fight outlaw terrorists, and the people’s need for it to face India.

But if the first part only came into play after 9/11, maybe it is a luxury item. They will always have Kashmir and India, so maybe they can be pressured (from the inside) to give up those with ideological ties to the terrorists.

Also, from India’s point of view, it’s a double whammy — they are really fighting two Pakistans, and I don’t think that’s sustainable.

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.