The total failure of our War On Terror

Submitted by gjohnsit on Tue, 10/01/2019 - 12:08pm

What is the point of war? To win.
How do you win? By killing and/or subduing your enemy.
So after 18 years of war how close to victory are we?

There are nearly four times as many Salafi-Jihadist militants around the world today than before 9/11: https://t.co/0B8TleXYrf pic.twitter.com/1L378hIbdD

— CSIS (@CSIS) September 28, 2019

Despite nearly two decades of U.S.-led counterterrorism operations, there are nearly four times as many Sunni Islamic militants today as there were on September 11, 2001. Based on a CSIS data set of groups, fighters, and violence, the regions with the largest number of fighters are Syria (between 43,650 and 70,550 fighters), Afghanistan (between 27,000 and 64,060), Pakistan (between 17,900 and 39,540), Iraq (between 10,000 and 15,000), Nigeria (between 3,450 and 6,900), and Somalia (between 3,095 and 7,240).

It's not just the number of terrorists. It's the number of terrorist attacks as well.

on an average, there were 19 terror attacks across the world every day between September 12, 2001 and December 31, 2017. In comparison to this, the average number of terror attacks per day was six in the 31 years before 9/11 (1970-2001).
The chart below shows the yearly rise in terror attacks between 1970 and 2017. You can see that after 2001, the graph records a steep rise in the number of terror attacks in comparison to the graph in the period between 1970 and 2001.

in the 31 years before 9/11, at least 1,51,381 people were killed in terror attacks across the world. This is 36.75 per cent of the total terror-related death between 1970 and 2017. In other words, on an average 13 people were killed in terror attacks-related acts every day in this period.
In the post-9/11 era, at least 2.6 lakh people were killed in terror attacks in 16 years (between September 12, 2011 and December 31, 2017). This is 63.24 per cent of all terror-related deaths which boils down to 45 deaths every day.

Thus, the average number of daily deaths due to terrorism rose from 13 in the pre-9/11 period to 45 deaths in the post-9/11 period.

So there are:

1) more terrorist groups
2) more terrorists x4
3) more terrorist attacks x3
4) more terrorist victims x3

Yet the politicians and news media never point out what an obviously disastrous failure this has been.

Tags:

gwot

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Tue, 10/01/2019 - 12:34pm

The point of war is not always to win

One recalls, for instance, that King Louis XIV of France (ruled 1643-1715) kept France in a perpetual state of warfare in what appeared to be an attempt to expand France eastward -- with very little in the way of results, though it served Louis XIV as an absolute ruler to keep the armies in perpetual motion.

Similarly, militarized America serves the real rulers of America (the Pentagon, the shadow government, the partisan elites, the corporate leadership and the rest of the super-rich) well. More directly, war keeps the military corporations well-ensconced in money. So if anyone asks why America wastes its resources on weapons that serve no purpose and wars that drag on forever without point, the politicians can always say, "don't you know we're at war?"

—

"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione

Submitted by gjohnsit on Tue, 10/01/2019 - 12:46pm

No politician would ever admit that

@Cassiodorus

Submitted by dervish on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 7:19am

But it's true. n/t

@gjohnsit

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by Bisbonian on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 8:36am

They won't admit a lot of things.

@gjohnsit But "winning" serves no purpose for them...only continuing in power (and campaign funding) does.

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by earthling1 on Tue, 10/01/2019 - 12:37pm

These graphics

need to be on display behind Tulsi or Bernie at every speech, townhall, or quest appearance for all to see.
Especially the photo at the end.
Thanks gjohnsit.
Just mind numbing.

—

Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.

Submitted by Linda Wood on Tue, 10/01/2019 - 12:48pm

Gen. Michael Flynn would agree with you,

gjohnsit. As he stated in a long interview with Mehdi Hasan at Al Jazeera in 2016:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2016/01/transcript-michae...

Transcript: Michael Flynn on ISIL
13 Jan 2016

… Michael Flynn: [TALKING OVER] Yeah. I think that we have invested in, in more conflict instead of actually investing in solutions. So, and when I say that, what I mean is that we invest in more drones, we invest in more bombs, we invest in more weapons, we invest in more ammunition, we invest in more guys to go out and kill more guys. That's investing in conflict, instead of really taking a serious look and say, "What … what are the big excuses that these guys are using?" And if it's lack of, you know, if it's poor economic conditions, if it's poor social conditions, then let's fix those. But those kinds of things aren't gonna get fixed overnight. And the leaders of the Middle East have to decide that that's what they want to do.

Mehdi Hasan: You sound very reasonable -

Michael Flynn: [TALKING OVER] And the expansion of these groups – so if you look at 2004 and you fast forward to 2014, so only, less than a year ago, the, the, the number of terrorists, our state department designated terrorist groups, have doubled. So something is wrong with our policy, and our strategy.

Mehdi Hasan: And here's what I don’t get. When you talk about fixing the underlying problems, when you talk about not investing in conflicts as the number one way of dealing with this, I agree with you, and you do sound very reasonable and persuasive, and yet in February in front of Congress, you said, when you were asked what’s to be done, "The enemy must be opposed, must be killed, must be destroyed."

Michael Flynn: Yeah. There's – and that's because -

Mehdi Hasan: [INTERRUPTING] There’s a dove General Flynn and there's a hawk General Flynn.

Michael Flynn: [TALKING OVER] Well, no, no, I mean there's – there are elements within this organisation that are – that the only way to deal with them is they either have to be captured and put away in some legitimate prison system that will actually hold them for some time …

Mehdi Hasan: [INTERRUPTING] Not Camp Nama, we hope.

Michael Flynn: Or, or they will have to be – or they have to be killed. I mean, that's a component of a much, much broader strategy. The military has to be like a lower case "m". I mean, it is so indecisive. It is not the peace that is going to win the day. There has to be other components of a strategy and I don't see 'em. I don't see 'em. I see us – I see us making the military component the principle effort from our perspective, and I just don't see any other real strong informational, diplomatic or primarily economic component to this thing. And frankly, the region needs to come to the table and say "This is how we believe we can end this thing".

Submitted by wokkamile on Tue, 10/01/2019 - 1:31pm

What "region" needs to

@Linda Wood come to the table? This thing (growing larger than I was aware) is more than just a ME problem, as it's now spread to Africa, Europe and Asia most deeply and consistently. Flynn needs to broaden his outlook and expand his thinking.

How about bringing the major countries affected from these regions, including the US but not taking point, into one large military group to help tackle the problem -- assuming the terrorist situation is not too far out of hand and diffuse right now to be able to control and destroy it militarily.

Simultaneously start conditioning support to places like SA on their cracking down on local terror cells as well as exporting their extremist brand of Islam. And the US (and some of its allies) should stop supporting terror groups (e.g. in Syria) b/c they are trying to overthrow gov'ts we want toppled. I think it was Kerry and maybe Biden also who in private meetings acknowledged this was happening under Obama. Tulsi's bill to Stop Arming Terrorists needs to be publicly supported by the Michael Flynns of the world.

A few suggestions not meant to be exhaustive.

gjohnsit. As he stated in a long interview with Mehdi Hasan at Al Jazeera in 2016:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2016/01/transcript-michae...

Transcript: Michael Flynn on ISIL
13 Jan 2016

… Michael Flynn: [TALKING OVER] Yeah. I think that we have invested in, in more conflict instead of actually investing in solutions. So, and when I say that, what I mean is that we invest in more drones, we invest in more bombs, we invest in more weapons, we invest in more ammunition, we invest in more guys to go out and kill more guys. That's investing in conflict, instead of really taking a serious look and say, "What … what are the big excuses that these guys are using?" And if it's lack of, you know, if it's poor economic conditions, if it's poor social conditions, then let's fix those. But those kinds of things aren't gonna get fixed overnight. And the leaders of the Middle East have to decide that that's what they want to do.

Mehdi Hasan: You sound very reasonable -

Michael Flynn: [TALKING OVER] And the expansion of these groups – so if you look at 2004 and you fast forward to 2014, so only, less than a year ago, the, the, the number of terrorists, our state department designated terrorist groups, have doubled. So something is wrong with our policy, and our strategy.

Mehdi Hasan: And here's what I don’t get. When you talk about fixing the underlying problems, when you talk about not investing in conflicts as the number one way of dealing with this, I agree with you, and you do sound very reasonable and persuasive, and yet in February in front of Congress, you said, when you were asked what’s to be done, "The enemy must be opposed, must be killed, must be destroyed."

Michael Flynn: Yeah. There's – and that's because -

Mehdi Hasan: [INTERRUPTING] There’s a dove General Flynn and there's a hawk General Flynn.

Michael Flynn: [TALKING OVER] Well, no, no, I mean there's – there are elements within this organisation that are – that the only way to deal with them is they either have to be captured and put away in some legitimate prison system that will actually hold them for some time …

Mehdi Hasan: [INTERRUPTING] Not Camp Nama, we hope.

Michael Flynn: Or, or they will have to be – or they have to be killed. I mean, that's a component of a much, much broader strategy. The military has to be like a lower case "m". I mean, it is so indecisive. It is not the peace that is going to win the day. There has to be other components of a strategy and I don't see 'em. I don't see 'em. I see us – I see us making the military component the principle effort from our perspective, and I just don't see any other real strong informational, diplomatic or primarily economic component to this thing. And frankly, the region needs to come to the table and say "This is how we believe we can end this thing".

Submitted by Linda Wood on Tue, 10/01/2019 - 4:12pm

Biden

@wokkamile

spoke about it clearly:

https://harpers.org/archive/2019/02/american-involvement-in-syria/

… Biden went public at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government on October 2, 2014:

"Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. The Turks . . . the Saudis, the Emiratis, etc. What were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni–Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world."

SA doesn't just have local terror cells and isn't just exporting their extremist brand of Islam. They are funding Al Qaeda and ISIS, which our forces are in the region to fight.

Sec. of State Clinton acknowledged it also:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774

On Aug 17, 2014 3:50 PM, "H"
wrote:
Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.

… While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region...

And Michael Flynn, who was Director of Defense Intelligence - DIA - in 2012, released this document and was ultimately removed from his position for making it public:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287...

… THE GENERAL SITUATION:

A. INTERNALLY, EVENTS ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION.

B. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.

C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA, AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.

… C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).

D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND ARE AS FOLLOWS:

--1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA… ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY...

Submitted by Bisbonian on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 8:49am

There are terrorists because there are people in their country,

@wokkamile , killing their families, destroying their livelihood, and generally making a mess of the place. There are terrorists in more countries than before because there are foreign (to them) troops in more countries than before. Terrorism is a reaction to invasion and devastation, from a people who cannot afford a regular army to defend them. Take away the threat to those people, and suddenly they can stop worrying about their lives and families being destroyed by foreigners. Soon they will have no reason for radical versions of their traditional religions, or for radical leaders who will bring them nothing but trouble.

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by edg on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 1:04pm

Excellent comment.

@Bisbonian

The U.S. is the #1 creator of so-called terrorists in the world. Every bomb we drop is a recruiting tool. Every civilian we kill has a friend or relative that now wants to kill Americans. It's almost like we're doing it deliberately so as to keep tossing money into the hungry maw of the MIC.

Submitted by wokkamile on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 1:49pm

Agree of course

@edg And yes, I'm with Tulsi on regime change wars. Definitely helps recruit terrorists.

Submitted by wokkamile on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 1:58pm

How about Saudi

@Bisbonian home-grown terrorism? Their extremist Wahabbism (sp), the way it is exported via learning materials to Islamic schools, learning centers and mosques around the world.

But we can discuss ultimate causes, in this country and that, agree here disagree there.

We have already done many unfortunate deeds leading to ongoing negative consequences. I was addressing how to deal with the hand we have dealt ourselves. Beyond that, definitely we can stop adding to the problem by stopping our unnecessary foreign engagements and arming of terrorist groups for cynical geopolitical purposes.

Submitted by gjohnsit on Tue, 10/01/2019 - 1:18pm

OT: Do you think Politico has an agenda?

Submitted by edg on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 1:06pm

No way!

@gjohnsit

They're just being fair and impartial. (Yeah, right.) Just wait and see what they do with Bernie's recent heart trouble.

Submitted by jwa13 on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 11:23am

According to Carl von Clausewitz,

who knew a thing or two about war (see, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz#Principal_ideas), a war is "won" when the enemy's will to fight (resist) has been eliminated.

Near as I can tell, every action taken by the U.S. in the Middle East, since LONG BEFORE 9/11, almost could have been designed to INCREASE the will to resistance of those whom the U.S. has attacked.

No one should be surprised by the devolution of the Middle East into "insane quagmire" status --

—

When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.

Submitted by Bob In Portland on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 11:55am

Victory!

The war on drugs has been won. Unfortunately for us, the drugs (and the dealers) won.

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 3:47pm

Every time I see another

military recruitment commercial, and it seems to me there are a lot more just recently but that could just be perception, and I hear that "we" fight for "honor," "duty," "freedom" and to "win" I find myself screaming back at the boob tube that "winning" is not the point, keeping the MIC funded IS the point. And for me now any thing I read that starts off with the premise that "we" must defeat "terrorism" my immediate reaction is get the hell out of other peoples' countries and maybe "we" would win that "fight." But winning is kinda tough to do when one is funding and arming the "other side."

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur