War on Terror - Winnable?
POSTED BY: Arawaen
UPDATED: Monday, August 10, 2026 14:56
VIEWED: 8893
PAGE 3 of 8
Hey- everybody agrees on this thread! Where's Hero, Jasonzz, Doran, Wulfhawk, Auraptor, Drakon, ConnorFlynn and all the other that make these threads so interesting?
Well, I can't match them for gung-ho-ism, but since this thread is just too darn agreeable, I'll play devil's advocate for a bit.
Just because the "war" on terrorism isn't a war and isn't "winnable" doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight it. Game theory and observation of human behavior tells me that when someone does something that you don't like, you have to apply some sort of negative consequence to their behavior or they will repeat it.
Let's take Chechnya as an example- one where the USA doesn't have any specific vested interest. As I understand it, the Chechnyan separatists don't enjoy the support of the majority. It actually doesn't take an exceptionally large minority to support ONGOING acts of terrorism, and single acts of terrorism can be accomplished by just a very few people.
So we have a group of people that believes in targeting and killing civilians to attain a political goal that may be supported by as few as 15% of the population and opposed by the remainder. From the viewpoint of this minority, even if the current government is tyrannical, a new democratic government is not going to solve their problem.
What to do? You have to control people who are intent on imposing their will on others through non-democratic means, even if it means becoming something of an autocrat yourself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I understand it the majority of colonists favored England during the American Revolution.
As I understand it the majority of women were opposed to voting during the suffragette movement.
That said you are right that
Quote:. A single individual can be a terrorist (such as the unabomber).
It actually doesn't take an exceptionally large minority to support ONGOING acts of terrorism, and single acts of terrorism can be accomplished by just a very few people.
I am no expert on Chechnya but didn't they attempt to secede from Russia and get crushed militarily before some resorted to terrorism? How popular is the movement for independence? I would assume that more people want independence than are willing to use terrorism to achieve it. It must strike some Chechnyans as odd that Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc. get their independence but they don't.
Quote:So what should I do about reality tv? I really want to stop that behavior.
Game theory and observation of human behavior tells me that when someone does something that you don't like, you have to apply some sort of negative consequence to their behavior or they will repeat it.
Quote:I don't think it is democratic or non-democratic means, but the rule of law that is important. One of the American ideals is that the minority has rights even against the majority. Plus, I think the pronouns in this statement are all wrong, I don't get to control people who impose their will by any means, I don't know about you. My option is always, "take it or leave it," offered with a cruel smirk.
You have to control people who are intent on imposing their will on others through non-democratic means, even if it means becoming something of an autocrat yourself.
Arawaen
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looking specifically at the hostage school, what should be done about instances like that, if anything?
Or, to put it another way, if you see a bully on the playground beating up on another kid, do you try to beat the crap out of him? If he and his buddies gang up on you and beat the crap out of you, do you go away and let him continue to beat up other kids? Or, alternatively, what if you ARE the biggest kid on the playground and you've defeated the bully- Does this mean that you are also a bully and not a victim?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Or, to put it another way, if you see a bully on the playground beating up on another kid, do you try to beat the crap out of him?
No, you go about it in a non-violent way. Pull the bully off the kid, with your friends backing you up, so that no further violence is committed.
If you aren't big enough and/or don't have access to enough friends, go get someone who does.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Or, alternatively, what if you ARE the biggest kid on the playground and you've defeated the bully- Does this mean that you are also a bully and not a victim?
Clearly by defeated you mean by violence. This is not always the case. In fact violence in only one out of many possible solutions. Quite frankly I don't find violence a solution until it is the absolutly last resort.
This question is also doesn't take into consideration the complexity of life. ie What did the bully actually do? Did it require such a strong response? Do you actually know what happened or are you just seeing the end product (ie the bully you see could actually be the good guy defending him/her-self)? How much bigger are you than that other bully? Did that other bully have superior number? I could go on at length but I think you get the point.
QUESTION: Why do all of your "solutions" involve violence as a first resort?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to grab one concept and start thinking on-line because it's pretty jumbled for me.
I read somewhere trolling the internet that it takes about 10-15% tacit support for a viable guerilla war. I presume the same goes for terrorism.* That's a small minority. One might think that a minority has no right to oppose an overwhelming majority. Something must be 'not right' with the minority position if so few people go along with it.
I can think of one example where the majority is in the wrong, and that is when the majority enslaves or takes other advantage of the minority. And of course the majority would like to retain their advantages, while the minority opposes them. So it isn't necessarily true that the majority opinion, by virtue of being the majority position, is the best one.
From the other side, what would induce such a small minority to go against overwhelming numbers? Technology makes a lopsided fight easier, and is in itself a factor. But it isn't the cause. There must be a reason to fight. I don't think it can be the quest for power, since it's unlikely a small group will be able to seize and hold power in relation to a larger (organized and armed) group. The best a small group can hope for is concessions or reprieve from the larger group. The fact that a small number acts against a larger number is to me ipso facto proof of a minority grievance against that group.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban (with Pakistan and US backing) 'won' against the USSR - not by conquering it, but by ejecting them from the country. What would be a 'win' for the insurgents in Iraq? Getting the US out. I don't know if they've made any claims about wanting to run Iraq, which would be contrary to my supposition. If they have, maybe someone could let me know.
Once started, how does a war end? It can end with mutual peace, or have a win/lose ending.
I have read that war can start at the perception of an instability in the peace; but once started (even for spurious reasons), when people deal death, outrage and loss, it positively feeds back. And then the intention to war continues as long as both sides think they can win.
An example of the death of a war is one of the protracted wars in Africa which came to an end when both sides realized they couldn't win; and they were tired of the mutual bludgeoning. They were both truly ready for peace, and the UN predicts it will be a lasting one.
Wars with military victories sometimes give rise to long-held hatreds, and any appearance of peace is merely an illusion, waiting to be broken at the proper opportunity.
What about terrorism? The larger group of course assumes it can win (militarily), given enough time. But for the smaller group, a 'win' must consist of something other than military conquest. Can concessions be made to the smaller group to give them a type 'victory' and stop the war? Has it been tried? I'd like to hear from anyone who knows about this.
So when it comes to the 'war on terrorism', I have to say first of all that dubya's version is really all about conjuring an enemy to garner internal power. It can't work the way he's doing it. But as someone once mentioned to me, the G8 has considerable resources and power. If it put its intelligence and economic resources together, I think it could actually stifle dissent anywhere in the world. The question is, should it? My answer would have to be no. It has to do with the old saw about absolute power.
When it comes to game theory, I haven't read anywhere about how it applies to players with vastly disparate power to determine the 'outcome' of the game. Tit-for-tat might end up like "plink SMASH plink SMASH". And I know far too little to be able to come up with a rule for that scenario.
*Unfortunately, like many obscure things I stumble across, I can't find it again. It was written by a navy expert ? for the military to outline strategies in general. If anyone can find it or knows what I'm referring to, I'd like to hear from them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It was written by a counter-insurgency expert who was deployed in Iraq. Captain somebody or other. I saw the same article which I (naturally) can't find, but I think it was in the LA Times.
[quoteI don't think it can be the quest for power, since it's unlikely a small group will be able to seize and hold power in relation to a larger (organized and armed) group. The best a small group can hope for is concessions or reprieve from the larger group. The fact that a small number acts against a larger number is to me ipso facto proof of a minority grievance against that group.
As I understand it, the general feeling in Iraq is to eject the US military. They may quibble about the timetable, the means, and the endpoint but you would be hard-pressed to find Iraqis who say "I want the US military to stay for a long time." I would guess that the situation is the same for the Palestinians. They have a long list of very understandable grievances that affects virtually all of their population.
On the other hand, it IS possible to have a small population determined to remake their world by any means possible. As I understand Chechnya, 70% of the people see themselves as part of the Russian federation, and while most of them are Sufis they do not want to see Sharia law instituted. The current head of the "independence" movement is bucking the majority on both counts. I could point to similar militancy by Muslims in Myanmar, to the neocons in the Administration and the ultra-rich worldwide whose "any means possible" enable them to impose their will on the vast majority.
So being a terrorist does not mean ipso facto that you have a legititmate grievance.
Quote:
Clearly by defeated you mean by violence. This is not always the case. In fact violence in only one out of many possible solutions. Quite frankly I don't find violence a solution until it is the absolutely last resort.
This question is also doesn't take into consideration the complexity of life. ie What did the bully actually do? Did it require such a strong response? Do you actually know what happened or are you just seeing the end product (ie the bully you see could actually be the good guy defending him/her-self)? How much bigger are you than that other bully? Did that other bully have superior number? I could go on at length but I think you get the point.
QUESTION: Why do all of your "solutions" involve violence as a first resort?
I was thinking that the bully was a habitual miscreant who was known for taking away lunch money, and that all of the usual playground dynamics were involved: he had one or two friends, that there were three or four favorite victims and that the other kids didn't get involved because they were happy that it wasn't them. I also assume that there was some "assault and battery" going on- threats of violence, shoving, and some punching (but not to the face).
If you'll assume that with me, I'd rather address your other points.
Your response leave me with a lot of thoughts.
The first is that force is often the only response that is quick enough for intervention. Ideally, the force is so overwhelming that it doesn't need to apply damage- but when overwhelming force isn't an option then violence is a good substitute.
The second is that assuming you can handle the situation in a non-violent way (humor, running way, negotiation, overwhelming force) where is the "negative reinforcment" that would keep this bully from doing the same thing again? It seems to me that bullies actually really only understand violence and fear- maybe from parental example- so how do you get through to this kind of kid? (or, how do you get through to someone like Milosevic?)
The third thought is that, in the long term, perhaps one can go to the root cause of bullying and eliminate it as much as possible.
And finally, it's interesting that neither one of us thought that the kid who intervened was a HERO, (the "good agressor") which would be another characterization that could be applied. Just goes to show how badly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You ran across it too? I read so many publications and run across so many things. At least I now know I wasn't dreaming. I tried so hard to find it again, but it was as if it never existed.
Quote:
On the other hand, it IS possible to have a small population determined to remake their world by any means possible. ... So being a terrorist does not mean ipso facto that you have a legitimate grievance.
It is possible for a VERY small group to dominate a country. It can happen if that country is not well armed or organized (colonies), or (if the country is armed) in a coup, or (if it is well organized and armed) where small groups runs the entire power structure such as the US oligarchy. But small groups outside of an existing (organized and armed) power structure face different problems. So I tried to specify what situation requires terrorism.
30% is a substantial minority and I think falls outside of this realm. (In my 'how does this eyeball on the street' measure, it is between one in every three to four people you meet. I think a minority that large, especially if they are concentrated in a few areas, might have aims that go beyond relief from a larger group.) The solution I think needs to take the historic particulars into account. Africa is a good example of how NOT to create countries. (Colonies were deliberately formed incorporating conflicting groups to prevent armed insurrection. Then the ruling gvts favored one side - usually the minority - over the other to divide people further. On independence in the 1960s, the borders were unfortunately retained, giving rise to 'internal' strife.) If there was an ill-conceived historic incorporation, perhaps it needs to be undone. Or, if they were a very small minority that grew in-place, an internal policy needs to address it. I don't have the time to fully discuss this (I'd like to at some other time), but I think there is a fine but VERY clear line in democratic majority/minority relations. One is that the minority should never dominate the majority. That needs to be clearly spelled out, as well as the penalties for minority insurrection (including armed response). On the other hand, the freedoms of the minority should not be abridged either. And freedoms should be considered in their broadest sense, in that they are guaranteed in relation to national, regional and local government, to business or other private groups, and to individuals, until specific laws place restrictions. (Unlike the US where freedoms are interpreted to be applicable only to individual/federal relations.)
As to bullies, as individuals I think I remember reading they respond in the long-term to group shunning. I have no idea how this might translate to nations.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ummm... why are we excluding a 30% minority from the discussion?
It seems to me that targeting civilian populations to gain political (or military) ends falls under the defintion of "terrorism" no matter how large or small the group of perpetrators. For example, since Israel bulldozes the family homes of "suspected" terrorists (no trial, no conviction, but the entire family is punished) that falls under the realm of terrorism as far as I'm concerned.
Is it because the assumption is that terrorists resort to terrorism because they have no other options, being a small group facing a well-organized and well-funded oppressor? But the problem is that terrorism is engaged in by ALL groups at all levels of organization for purposes of oppression as well as for liberation.
I'd like to explore the bully analogy furhter, too. While direct analogies between individuals and organizations ultimately break down, don't think the analogy has broken down yet. The analog of "shunning" might be "embargo", or it may be something that has not been thought of yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, we may have lost the war...but I'm still not sure we were on the wrong side. We must keep fighting the good fight because it's not about the end result or winning....it's about doing what is right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry if this is just a ramble, I was in a hurry and had little time to re-edit before posting.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was thinking that the bully was a habitual miscreant who was known for taking away lunch money, and that all of the usual playground dynamics were involved: he had one or two friends, that there were three or four favorite victims and that the other kids didn't get involved because they were happy that it wasn't them. I also assume that there was some "assault and battery" going on- threats of violence, shoving, and some punching (but not to the face).
If you'll assume that with me, I'd rather address your other points.
Your response leave me with a lot of thoughts.
The first is that force is often the only response that is quick enough for intervention. Ideally, the force is so overwhelming that it doesn't need to apply damage- but when overwhelming force isn't an option then violence is a good substitute.
What I would condone if the bully was actually beating on the "little one" is for our "hero" to come up behind the bully, grab him from behind (no hitting) and remove him from the child. This would hopefully only toss the bully a number of feet back and maybe in an extreme case to the ground. Continuing from there (see next):
If it's just a intimidation thing then getting inbetween shouldn't be difficult as negotiation would be a viable alternative. And with how much these children now adays trash talk, I gather that the window for this solution is fairly large.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The second is that assuming you can handle the situation in a non-violent way (humor, running way, negotiation, overwhelming force) where is the "negative reinforcment" that would keep this bully from doing the same thing again? It seems to me that bullies actually really only understand violence and fear- maybe from parental example- so how do you get through to this kind of kid? (or, how do you get through to someone like Milosevic?)
Most bully (all in my experience) are actually cowards. They back off as soon as something doesn't add up in there little minds. And now an example from my life.
When I was in grade 12, I was ~5'11'' 130 lbs. One day I stood up to a bully (it's sad that he existed at that level). He was 6'2 ~265 lbs. How'd I do it. I went toe to toe with him and stared him down. I would gather that the psychology here is that he didn't know why this little guy knew so he backed off (not a punch thrown). Didn't have any problems from him anymore.
As for the negative reinforcment. I'd think that the embaressment (if people are around, which is most of the time. after all bullies usually play to an audience) would be a good one. If the teacher found out then there would be some from that. It all depends on the situation.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The third thought is that, in the long term, perhaps one can go to the root cause of bullying and eliminate it as much as possible.
My thinking (an other child psychologists as well) is that these bullies are just acting out because of some other thing going on in there life. Whether it's bad at math, parents getting a divorce, etc it's usually something. I've only seen a small number of cases that it wasn't something like this.
It's also my understanding that bullying (as much as we have today or at least how violent) is a fairly new occurence. I'd conjecture a link between the parents that don't really parent and this phenomenon ie cry for attention. And since the parents don't really teach proper morals, social behaviour, etc anymore, how are our kids supposed to act properly.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And finally, it's interesting that neither one of us thought that the kid who intervened was a HERO, (the "good agressor") which would be another characterization that could be applied.
I didn't forget because I don't view the person who intervened a hero. (S)he is just doing what is right. Quite frankly, I wo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME