RAND STUDY: Stop Using the Phrase "War on Terror."

In response to a query I sent out to various anti-Iraq War Veterans groups and even those that only QUESTION various aspects of the War on Terror, I received a response from the staff of Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), and more than enough feedback from various anti-Iraq War activists to tell me that there remains an anti-Iraq War movement.

However there has not been or at least given thought to an anti-Afghanistan War movement nor has anyone who QUESTIONS our role in Iraq seriously QUESTIONED the role of U.S. Forces in the War on Terror or even Afghanistan, which is but one aspect of the War on Terror.

NOTE: that is regardless if one believes there is a Global War on Terror (GWOT) or not – more on that later.

However, in any discussion about how divided those who question the Iraq War are about deploying additional troops to Afghanistan, I would be remiss in not sharing the latest passed to me by Brother Ward Reilly of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and Veterans for Peace (VFP). Ward posted a link to the following Rand Corporation Press Release (dated 29 July 2008) on the War on Terror and Afghanistan. The Rand Corporation is about as non-partisan and pro-military as a think tank can be. There is NO SCRET that the Pentagon has contracted with RAND for decades to do National Security and Military Affairs related studies.

I selected this graphic from the computer war game – WAR on TERROR – to make a point. Despite so many, including the Pentagon, making hay off of the fact that not only has the War on Terror been SOLD to the American people or that is the impression I get from Congress. The War on Terror obviously SELLS = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism." The RAND Corporation

RAND’s press release is titled: U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/

According to a new RAND Corporation study issued last Tuesday [29 July 2008], "current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group’s capabilities. Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group’s attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa (despite no actual attack on U.S. soil since 911)

In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, RAND found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police [first responders] and intelligence agencies [I believe that would be Interpol], rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," researchers concluded.

"The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization [that has been contracted by the Pentagon for decades to do defense studies]. "In most cases, military force isn’t the best instrument."

This IS NOT a military SWAT Team but
a Civil Law Enforcement SWAT Team!

The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism
http://www.mipt.org/

The most common way that terrorist groups end — 43 percent — was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end — 40 percent — was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said. [Though the amount may, or may not, be adequate compared to what America barrows to pay for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, most every Law Enforcement and local Police agency/force across the U.S. has not only set up counter-terrorist units, but have receive FUNDING from Homeland Security to subsidize these efforts. Major Hanafin].

Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined; in most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups, although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are large, well-armed and well-organized. In a number of cases, the groups end because they become splintered, with members joining other groups or forming new factions. Terrorist groups achieved victory in only 10 percent of the cases studied.

The study has crucial implications for U.S. strategy in dealing with al Qaida and other terrorist groups. Since al Qaida’s goal is the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, a political solution or negotiated settlement with governments in the Middle East is highly unlikely. The terrorist organization also has made numerous enemies and does not enjoy the kind of mass support received by other organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, largely because al Qaida has not engaged in sponsoring any welfare services, medical clinics, or hospitals.

The U.S. should adopt a two-front strategy: rely on policing and intelligence work to root out the terrorist leaders in Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East, and involve military force — though not necessarily the U.S. military — when insurgencies are involved.

STOP USING THE TERM "WAR ON TERROR," AND REPLACE IT WITH WHAT IT IS: COUNTERTERRORISM!

The United States also should avoid the use of the term, "war on terror," and replace it with the term "counterterrorism." Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror," and [RAND] said it’s more than a mere matter of semantics.

"The term we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use," RAND Corporation’s Jones said. "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."

To find out more about the other RAND findings GO TO: http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/

"The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy and keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," Jones said.

The study, "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaida," can be found at www.rand.org

The report was prepared by the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center that does research for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands and other defense agencies.

Learn More
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/

Robert L. Hanafin

Readers are more than welcome to use the articles I’ve posted on Veterans Today, I’ve had to take a break from VT as Veterans Issues and Peace Activism Editor and staff writer due to personal medical reasons in our military family that take away too much time needed to properly express future stories or respond to readers in a timely manner.

My association with VT since its founding in 2004 has been a very rewarding experience for me.

Retired from both the Air Force and Civil Service. Went in the regular Army at 17 during Vietnam (1968), stayed in the Army Reserve to complete my eight year commitment in 1976. Served in Air Defense Artillery, and a Mechanized Infantry Division (4MID) at Fort Carson, Co. Used the GI Bill to go to college, worked full time at the VA, and non-scholarship Air Force 2-Year ROTC program for prior service military. Commissioned in the Air Force in 1977. Served as a Military Intelligence Officer from 1977 to 1994. Upon retirement I entered retail drugstore management training with Safeway Drugs Stores in California. Retail Sales Management was not my cup of tea, so I applied my former U.S. Civil Service status with the VA to get my foot in the door at the Justice Department, and later Department of the Navy retiring with disability from the Civil Service in 2000.

I’ve been with Veterans Today since the site originated. I’m now on the Editorial Board. I was also on the Editorial Board of Our Troops News Ladder another progressive leaning Veterans and Military Family news clearing house.

I remain married for over 45 years. I am both a Vietnam Era and Gulf War Veteran. I served on Okinawa and Fort Carson, Colorado during Vietnam and in the Office of the Air Force Inspector General at Norton AFB, CA during Desert Storm. I retired from the Air Force in 1994 having worked on the Air Staff and Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon.