Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Rand Research: US Needs Strategy Shift to Defeat Al-Qaida

Via AP News -

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

"Keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," said the study by the federally funded Rand research center, an organization that counsels the Pentagon.

Its report said that the use of military force by the United States or other countries should be reserved for quelling large, well-armed and well-organized insurgencies, and that American officials should stop using the term "war on terror" and replace it with "counterterrorism."

"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.

"The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al-Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy," Jones said.

Nearly every ally, including Britain and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror" to describe strategy against the group headed by Osama bin Laden and considered responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 suicide attacks at the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon.

Based on an analysis of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, the report concluded that a transition to the political process is the most common way such groups end. But the process, found in 43 percent cases examined, is unlikely with al-Qaida, which has a broad, sweeping agenda, the report said.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end, seen in about 40 percent of the cases, is through police and intelligence services apprehending or killing key leaders, Jones said. Police are particularly effective because their permanent presence in cities helps them gather information, he said.

By contrast, the report said, military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases.
Jones, in an interview, said, "Even where we found some success against al-Qaida, in Pakistan and Iraq, the military played a background or surrogate role. The bulk of the action was taken by intelligence, police and, in some cases, local forces."


"We are not saying the military should not play a role," he said. "But unless you are talking about large insurgencies, military force should not be the tip of the spear."

-----------------------------

I believe most would agree that, in general, police and local intelligence / law enforcement forces are more better suited for counterterrorism than a full-blown army - which can be like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

United States Department of Defense policy, based on the Posse Comitatus Act, forbids domestic counter-terrorism operations by the US military.

Thus, it is very important to ensure that these types of institutions are build and supported locally.

On a side note, I agree with the report...on the term "War on Terror"...it has grown to be very misleading to the general public....and basically just a flash (tv friendly) replacement for counterterrorism (CT).

For this reason, I try very hard to avoid it.

No comments:

Post a Comment