web analytics

A FIVE POINT PLAN TO DEFEAT TERRORISM

By ATWadmin On September 7th, 2007

Over on The Business, you can read an interesting analysis of the war on terror, six years on from 9/11, and a five point plan to do something positive to ensure we win and the terrorists lose. In essence, these five points boil down to;

1.  Pakistan is a critical area. Musharraf must be told that the military and financial aid on which his regime depends will only keep on flowing if he renounces his military uniform, as he promised to do by the end of 2004 at the latest, and allows free and fair parliamentary elections. While the Islamist parties would undoubtedly make gains, mainstream groups would hold the balance of power. The longer Pakistan goes without elections, the better the extremist religious parties will do when they come.

2. Iraq is also critical. The first priority must be to prevent the country from becoming a base for terrorism in the heart of the oil-producing Middle East. It must also be prevented from turning into a venue for a region-wide Shiite Sunni struggle with Iran intervening on behalf of its co-religionists while Saudi Arabia lends support to its fellow Sunnis. Finally, the Iraqi people must be provided with basic security and an opportunity to determine their own future. Regrettably, all three of these goals will require the ongoing presence of coalition forces; the new US strategy, which has succeeded in cutting sectarian killings in Baghdad in half, should be given time to succeed. It is important to remember that Osama bin Laden acquired his belief in the West’s decadence from the American retreat from Somalia in 1993-94.

3.  Preventing Iran from getting the bomb must be the West’s third priority. A nuclear Iran would instantly become the regional hegemon, entirely impervious to external pressure.

4. The fourth crucial step is to win at home. It is a sobering fact that the only successful terrorist attack on British soil since 9/11 was carried out by British citizens. The attacks that have been foiled since also seem to have been principally the work of those with strong ties to British society.

5. A renewed push for economic and political liberalism in Islamic countries. Ultimately, terrorism will not be defeated until it has been starved of the oxygen of despair, which is its life force. Men and women across the Islamic world must believe that they have control over their own futures and that they can make a better world for their children; for that democratic market capitalism is a crucial prerequisite.

Not sure I agree with ALL of these, but there is value in the broad views expressed. Put even more succinctly, I would advise that we  a/ Take out Wazirstan. b/ Fight and kill all Jihadists in Iraq c/Bomb Iranian nuclear facilities d/ Arrest all Islamic threats within the UK, including the preachers of hatred. What do you think we need to be doing?

11 Responses to “A FIVE POINT PLAN TO DEFEAT TERRORISM”

  1. David

    ‘A renewed push for economic and political liberalism in Islamic countries’

    You didn’t have an explicit bullet response to this one I think.

    If one looks at the economies of the main sponsors of terrorism – being Saudi, Iran and Syria – I think they have a massive problem.

    Except for Oil revenue, they have nothing and Syria doesn’t even have Oil.

    They all have large and growing populations.

    I don’t see that it’s feasible to alleviate the ‘despair’.

    If that turns out to be the case, the jihad will be with us for a very long time.

    Whether it is effective is the question.

    I’m somewhat encouraged that there have been no really effective terrrorist attacks in the 1st world for some time.

    It seems that everyone’s counter-terrorism is working.

    Could sustaining this success be sufficient to deal with terrorism?

    I think yes with the one exception of the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

    Iran’s problem though is how could it use one or more nuclear weapons.

    Its target list is probably and in order – Israel, the US and Saudi.

    An attack against any of those would likely lead to quite a large response, be it conventional or nuclear. I’m fairly sure the Iranian leadership is aware of that. Would they then proceed to use their nuclear weaponry in any case?

    Israel is in the most vulnerable position here and they have said that they will not tolerate Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    The US has the stance that an attack on Iran is not ruled out.

    Which way does this go?

    I rather doubt that Israel acting alone could achieve any effective reduction of the Iranian threat.

    The issue would seem then to turn on the US attitude. I rather suspect the US, being rather less under the gun, will eventually adopt a policy of wait and see.

    In support of that contention, by waiting the US would not risk eceonomic dislocation, would not be seen as an aggresor and would be able to move the pieces in the local M.E. theater to a point where Shia Iran could find itself embroiled in a war with the Sunni jihad in and around the middle of Iraq.

    I also rather wonder how large a factor is the confidence in the various ABM systems that Israel and the US jointly have in place or are developing.

    In sum, I think the US and Israel will do nothing in the hope that Iran implodes and that even in its final days the Iranian leadership does not achieve a launch.

  2. "and allows free and fair parliamentary elections"

    I would have thought the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on tyrants would have made our generations understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.

  3. I agree with Jeff that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are the states funding and sponsoring the islmic radicalism for the most part. In that Syria is largely doing the bidding of Iran, it’s possible to reduce the state sponsorship to 2 states: Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    THe fact that they are so dependent on oil revenues is perhaps the West’s salvation.

    1. We need to stop trade with the Saudis until Western freedoms are respected within Saudi borders, and the funding and promotion of the Wahhabi anti-Western islamism is stopped.

    2. We need to dismantle Iran’s nuclear plants ASAP and topple the crazy Ahmadinejad regime.

    I leave it to our politicians to figure out a way to do this. 🙂

  4. 1. A push for alternative energy sources. Without the need for oil we cut the flow of continued finance to those who perpetuate Jihad against us. Without funding they cannot continue to wage to war against the west that oil finances have enabled the middle-east to do, both politically and militarily.

  5. Patty & Sentinel

    Realistically we can’t shed our dependence on Oil in any timescale of less than decades.

    So if we have to accept that the dollars we spend to buy oil go to funding terrorism, here’s my cunning plan…

    We put the Saudis and Iranians in a position where they must fight each other as a priority over fighting us.

    We’re nearly there I think. Another 1 or 2 years and Sunni Islam faces Shia Islam in Iraq.

    There’s an added benefit to our economies too as all those dollars come right back to pay for the increased Saudi defense spend. I guess the Iranians’ dollars will go to China but that’s OK.

    I am so looking forward to watch one set of bastards rip the other set of bastards.

    Laissez les bon temps roulez.:)

  6. Loser talking…

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6984102.stm

    We win, don’t lose sight of that. 🙂

    Not goin’ to call a tausend jahr Reich but I’ll settle for at least a hunnert.:)

    Via Victis as was and will be.:)

  7. Jeff – I like it! Let Iraq be the Sunni/Shia Vietnam.

    Make it so Number One….

  8. Daphne,

    Aye, Captain.

    It’s not even work when you enjoy it.:)

    Obviously, if you or anyone here see a problem with the technique, do let me know…:)

    In the interin though and mainly, the Islamists are so screwed…

  9. Oh yes and to share from the usually excellent http://www.moonbattery.com…see the link.

    Venezuela,,,Spanish for Zimbabwe…:)

  10. Jeff I see a problem in your plan. We can not allow Iraq to be the battle field. Those people have suffered enough. The may be taking the long way around the field but they are making political progress.

    The need to strike Iran NOW and strike it hard is paramount. The Iranian people will NEVER be able to overthrow the religous government. We must dismantle it from outside. The strike on Irans Nuke facilities must also encompass it’s ability to strike externally plus the most important target is Irans refinery. They only have one DESTROY IT and their oil fields. Conventional weapons attacks on those targets along with the nuke sites will destroy their government.

    We can cut off the money from buying ME Crude. We have enough of our own domestic oil not to need it. Screw the Enviromentalists and drill it.

  11. Troll

    ‘I see a problem in your plan. We can not allow Iraq to be the battle field. Those people have suffered enough. The may be taking the long way around the field but they are making political progress.’

    Quite agree that is a problem. It is however a moral problem and I’m rather coming at this from the viewpoint of simple cold calculation of national interest.

    It would be better overall for us – the US and UK and the rest – if we could engineer a situation, even accidentally, where Shia and Sunni Islam end up fighting each other rather than us.

    The Iraqis unfortunately become collateral damage but it does take the pressure off the West – such as that pressure is.

    On Iran, we could bomb them anytime. I don’t actually have a problem with that but I do wonder if we need to bomb them at all.

    We seem to ignore their funding and weapons supply to at least some factions in Iraq so it looks as if the only thing to move us to attack them would be the concern about their acquiring a nuke.

    That still seems to be a while away so why rush?

    You’re right that the US wouldn’t suffer too much on the Oil supply front given that we get most of it from Canada, Mexico and Saudi.

    I think Europe would be OK too though the Indians and Chinese might see a gap in Iranian crude supply.

    Our domestic supply, mainly the offshore reserves that we can’t drill for and to some extent ANWAR, would be useful to have but it would take years to get legislative approval and actually set up the wellheads.