The DMF Doctrine

[Dead Man Flying]

I've been thinking, over the last few days, of how a massive military response to terrorism might achieve the goal of eliminating terrorism once and for all.  I've seen a number of posts from individuals expressing concern over how difficult it would be to militarily engage small bands of highly motivated and highly mobile terrorists cliques.

It then occurred to me that an appropriate policy (for lack of a better name... the DMF Doctrine) would be to concentrate more on the states who willfully harbor terrorists than on the terrorists themselves.  The goal of doing so would be to dramatically and fundamentally increase the costs associated with sponsoring and/or abetting terrorist organizations.  Such costs could include the destruction of infrastructure, industry, economy, military might, and more; such destruction, as we have witnessed in Kosovo, seriously undermines the power base for totalitarian regimes and raises the possibility of civil unrest of war in addition to outside attacks.

By so raising the costs of aiding terrorist organizations, whatever benefits these governments receive from harboring terrorists -- security, power, wealth, religious satisfaction, or whatnot -- pale compared to the costs.  

The result?  Destabilization of regimes who stubbornly refuse to acquiesce; and more likey than not, the cooperation of regimes who stand more to lose by supporting terrorism than they stand to gain by it.  We won't need to hunt down the individual terrorists, as these countries will do it for us out of fear of international military reprisals.  Eventually, terrorist organizations will become pariahs in most countries or embattled where they are not.

The DMF Doctrine's ultimate goal is to permanently rid terrorists of secure staging and training areas around the world.  While it might be impossible to fully eliminate terrorist groups, by increasing the costs of organizing for them as well, the likelihood of future attacks of such complexity, scale, and horrifying effectiveness diminish.

Thoughts?    

-- Todd/DMF

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Dead Man Flying ]

[Naso]

1. The "collateral" civilian losses?
I mean, the innocent are'nt the same, in any country?
Or our innocent are better than others?

2. Destroying a nation and killing civilians, will not force the people to attack the dictator, but probably will enhance his power and the hate of population toward us, feeding with fresh troops the terrorist organization.

We need to be more subtile and clever.  

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Naso:
1. The "collateral" civilian losses?
I mean, the innocent are'nt the same, in any country?
Or our innocent are better than others?

I didn't suggest the intentional targetting of civilians, nor any methods that would necessarily result in civilian casualties.  Rather, we should seek those targets that hit the governments that support terrorism the most -- any targets that effectively undermine their ability to retain control over their people.

Don't forget that even after the Gulf War, large pockets of dissident Kurds rose up in Iraq.  Had the Gulf War coalition continued to pound Iraq and occupy Hussein's military forces, it's entirely possible that Kurdish rebels could have waged a successful campaign to overthrow the government.  It's not surprising that the very first thing Hussein did after the end of the Gulf War was to desparately consolidate his power and throw what was left of his military at rebel forces.

 

2. Destroying a nation and killing civilians, will not force the people to attack the dictator, but probably will enhance his power and the hate of population toward us, feeding with fresh troops the terrorist organization.

Again, you assume that my plan involves the killing of civilians where it does not.  As well, we even see evidence in history that a vigorous military campaign breeds discontent among those targetted.  Hitler barely survived an attempted assassination by high-ranking military and political officials, remember.  In Panama, America succeeded in ousting a dictator by more direct means.  In Iraq, rebel factions came out of the woodwork late in the Gulf War.  In Kosovo, the air campaign undermined confidence in Molosovich enough that his later attempts to rig the democratic elections led to his being overthrown.

 

We need to be more subtile and clever.    

Already we see the fruits of a wider strategy.  Is it any surprise that Pakistan, known as a home for Taliban extremism and a safe haven for Islamic terrorist groups, has gone out of its way to denounce terrorism?  They're not dumb; they know full well that the price for supporting terrorists has now gone up.  Not only do they face the possibility of an international coalition waging war against them, but they recognize that such a war would seriously affect their ability to defend themselves against long-time enemy India.  The costs of supporting terrorism now include internal destabilization, infrastructure collapse, and the possible loss of long disputed lands to India.  It could also result in the destruction of their new nuclear capabilities.

Why not pursue a strategy that already works?

-- Todd/DMF

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Dead Man Flying ]

[Snoopi]

It has been mentioned that
Osama Bin Laden has cells in 34 countries.
Not all cell members are Arabic.
(one suspect that has been detained in Europe, is a terrorist with known connections to Bin Laden. He is French.)
Each cell is functionally independent from the rest.

Kill Osama, the cells won't be effected.
Get rid of 2 cells... the other cells make another attack.

Where are those cells ?
In The United States (some, it seems, in Florida getting a tan) and most other countries.

Is the US harbouring the cells ? NO
Are most of the 34 countries harbouring the cells ?  NO
They exist and the only time the Governments realize they are there is when an attack happens.

The only way to shut it down is to have airport and border measures like Israel.
(Then again attacks still happen in Israel, even with all their severe precautions.   )

It will affect travel and shipping, thereby affecting commerce.

And then internally,in each country, the police will need more power and the citizens.. less privacy.
At least until all internal groups are cleaned out. Then the border screening will hopefully prevent more groups infiltrating.
Then internally the security could be lessened.

This doesn't even touch the problem with the Tim McVeigh of the world.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Snoopi ]

[ispar]

I think Snoopi said it very well. People thinking that we can eliminate terrorism by attacking countries "harboring" terrorists and generally tracking down terrorists everywhere are locked in the same mindset as those who thought a "Star Wars" type program was a good step toward anti-terrorist defense.

Everyone is trying to come up with the scenario that they think would be the easiest to deal with, and devising appropriate methods. As was proven this week, this kind of blind hoping and planning is unrealistic and utterly inadequate.

[newguy2]

I think Snoopi said it very well. People thinking that we can eliminate terrorism by
attacking countries "harboring" terrorists and generally tracking down terrorists

Your right. Nothing is going to be 100 percent. What is? What do you suggest?

[Hangtime]

Total Blockade, and seizure of assets abroad for those nations that harbor terrorists.

Destruction of all ports, mine all harbors, destroy all oil terminals. Shut the money off.

Continued airstrikes, continued attacks against communications, command and control.

Incessant propoganda, support of internal factions that are pro-western.

Do NOT invade. Simply pound them till they holler uncle.

The DMF doctrine is sound.. with the addition of asset seizure and trade/communication/commerce/succor closure no adversary state need ever see one US troop set foot on it's soil for us to achieve our objective.

They get a choice.. stone age terrorist base or civilized county. I suspect they will eventually see it DMF's way.

[funkedup]

DMF your doctrine is pretty much being implemented: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/32534.htm

[newguy2]

Hang,
 A bit off topic here. I'm damn proud of the job you guys are doing in NYC! On Fox tonight they interviewed a man from Rochester NY (my home town)looking for his daughter. I believe he said she was on one of the top floors Godspeed to you and the rest of the crews.

 DMF, What both you and Dead Dude have express will happen long before any troops go a shore. There won't be a replay of say, Tarawa. Generally, invasions are needed to remove the government. Notable exceptions, Germany WW1, Japan WW2 and Kosovo. Of course, lumping the first two in with the third is a bit of a stretch. It's possible that the population of a small country would welcome an invasion of pounded long enough.

[Snoopi]

My real point was that the countries where cells exist are not necessarily "harbouring" them.

The U.S. doesn't harbour terrorists yet they terrorists live there.
The same here in Canada.
These guys can be your next door neighbour.

The measures you are talking, about work for very few nations.

IMO:
Yes.. Go after the countries who actually harbour the terrorists.
Then for the rest of the terrorist cells...
Every country has to have more complete screening for visas and immigration.
Every country has to flush them out internally.

34 Countries with cells HIDDEN in them not harboured by them.