|
9326. robertjayb - 3/26/2009 2:33:49 AM Not on point I suppose but my long-held idea on dealing with terrorism is to form a super interpol, interpol on steroids. Staff it with really intelligent 007's. This idea comes from being convinced that "wars" on things seldom effective. 9327. alistairconnor - 3/26/2009 1:28:44 PM The problem with an interpol type organization is that it works as a co-operation agency, they do analysis and liaison, they have no authority to do any real police work except by invitation of member states, in collaboration with national police forces.
Even as an intelligence sharing outfit they are only going to be as strong as the weakest link : i.e. if they share intelligence with a porous national police force, then you're sharing it with the bad guys.
The creation of a genuinely autonomous supra-national police force would be nice, but then it would require delegation of sovereignty on the part of member nations in order to operate on the ground. And who would govern it?
Currently, terrorism is fought most effectively by collaboration between national police and intelligence agencies who build up mutual trust and intelligence sharing. And it's actually a lot more effective than we might imagine : it's just that we don't hear a lot about it. By design. 9328. Wombat - 3/26/2009 3:59:57 PM The Europol organizational model, which sticks police officials from EU countries under one roof, with the mandate to work cooperatively on a real time basis (without the need for a formal request for assistance) has been effective.
Another problem with an international, supranational force is membership. All countries in the world participate in Interpol. I can think of a number of countries that might exploit or hinder such force for their own ends. 9329. vonKreedon - 3/27/2009 5:55:22 PM Terrorism on the scale that we are seeing today is more than an international law enforcement issue. The FBI had no means to shut down the Taliban's support for alQaeda. Nor do I want the FBI to have the ability to project military force that it would take to shut down terrorist training camps in various other countries, I want the military to do that.
Now, I'm not at all arguing that law enforcement is irrelevant to an effective response to modern terrorism. An effective response requires a wholistic use of all our resources, intel, law enforcement, diplomatic, financial, and military. But to rule out the military option because that means warfighting and because it's the tool Bush reached for first is to seriously degrade our ability to respond to modern terrorism and so would make our and other countries less safe. 9330. Wombat - 3/27/2009 6:42:40 PM Be careful not conflate Al Qaeda-style terrorism and on-going insurgencies, which tend to have a broader sociopolitical context. 9331. vonKreedon - 3/27/2009 6:47:24 PM Yes, but the two have recognized that by strategic collaboration they can acheive upside synergistice effeciencies that can only be countered by aggressive application of .... ok, I'll stop with the Dilbert speak, I'm not sure why I found that so funny.
But seriously, the two things are different, but in some cases they are collaborating and cross-polinating. 9332. Wombat - 3/27/2009 9:39:51 PM The scary thing is that I actually understood what you wrote...
That strategic collaboration existed in the years leading up to 2001. It no longer exists in that form. 9333. vonKreedon - 3/27/2009 9:53:40 PM Really? I'm curious for more details on the statement that such strategic collaboration does not exist post-2001. 9334. Wombat - 3/28/2009 4:06:43 AM Afghanistan under the Taliban regime was what amounted to a state sanctuary for Al Qaeda. In return for the ability to operate undisturbed in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda helped Taliban stay in power. The killing of Massoud, for example, had the hallmark of an Al Qaeda operation. That came to an end after 9/11.
Taliban and Al Qaeda are now in a similar position: operating covertly in regions that while somewhat hospitable, do not lend themselves to the ease and openness of movement and logistics that existed in Taliban-run Afghanistan. Whatever strategic collaboration that still exists between Taliban and Al Qaeda, is--I suspect--devoted more to fighting to retake Afghanistan, rather than furthering Al Qaeda's larger goals. 9335. vonKreedon - 3/28/2009 5:10:19 AM I would argue that retaking Afghanistan, and taking Pakistan or at least the FATA, is a strategic goal of Al Qaeda. 9336. wabbit - 4/1/2009 1:12:43 AM This looks like a promising series to follow.
Postcard from Pipelineistan
By Pepe Escobar
What happens on the immense battlefield for the control of Eurasia will provide the ultimate plot line in the tumultuous rush towards a new, polycentric world order, also known as the New Great Game.
Our good ol' friend the nonsensical "Global War on Terror," which the Pentagon has slyly rebranded "the Long War," sports a far more important, if half-hidden, twin -- a global energy war. I like to think of it as the Liquid War, because its bloodstream is the pipelines that crisscross the potential imperial battlefields of the planet. Put another way, if its crucial embattled frontier these days is the Caspian Basin, the whole of Eurasia is its chessboard. Think of it, geographically, as Pipelineistan…
And now I need to make myself a crib sheet of the new acronyms.
9337. alistairconnor - 4/1/2009 10:04:27 AM I would argue that retaking Afghanistan, and taking Pakistan or at least the FATA, is a strategic goal of Al Qaeda.
This is formally true, in that their political goal is the re-creation of the Emirate. But they know that this is currently out of reach. In practice, the creation, or exploitation, of failed states in which they can operate freely, is surely their operational goal. Iraq a couple of years ago was the epitome of this. Afghanistan is not all that much use to them as a failed state, because it's not very connected with the rest of the world. Their paramount goal at the moment is surely the failure of the republic of Pakistan. Hence the current spate of terror commando attacks (the Sri Lanka cricket team, and the police academy). 9338. alistairconnor - 4/1/2009 1:01:52 PM Your sources are excellent, Wabbit...
I've been saying for a couple of years now, that the new Great Game is over, and Russia won. The grotesque Georgian war was the final nail in the coffin of the US strategy, a fitting legacy for the Bush years.
But nothing is ever really over... the big news this year is that the Chinese, who are redeploying the surpluses they used to buy US Treasuries with, are going to provide the bulk of the capital for the development of the East Siberian oil and gas fields (Russia being suddenly short of cash because of oil prices). The West Siberian fields have pipelines pointing west, but they are in decline. It's now firmly established that the infrastructure for the East Siberian fields, where all the potential for growth is, will be pointing south and east. The Japanese can get some of it, if they play smart; but the bulk of it will go to China.
In the Central Asian game, the best card America has left may turn out to be Iran... 9339. robertjayb - 4/2/2009 5:39:01 AM Lookie..the Queen carries a purse in her own house...
Probably has a 9mm in there.
(via kissmybigbluebutt.com) 9340. alistairconnor - 4/2/2009 11:07:07 AM Just think of all the things she hasn't got in hers... no car keys, no house keys, no credit cards or cheque books... 9341. vonKreedon - 4/2/2009 4:31:35 PM She's got to put that iPod somewhere. 9342. alistairconnor - 4/2/2009 5:04:48 PM I note that Carla Sarkozy didn't show at the G20... her story is that she prefers to meet Michelle O one on one, on her own turf... the truth is more complicated, and relates to events at Davos, as will be related in the fiction thread... 9343. vonKreedon - 4/2/2009 6:32:32 PM Afghanistan is not all that much use to them as a failed state, because it's not very connected with the rest of the world. Their paramount goal at the moment is surely the failure of the republic of Pakistan.
Afghanistan wasn't any better connected to the rest of the world in the late 90's when alQaeda based their attacks on our east African embassies, the USS Cole, and 9/11 from there. And yes, if they could cause both Afghanistan and especially Pakistan to fail that would be a huge strategic coup on the part of alQaeda and a large step toward their overall goal of restablishing the Caliphate.
From the beginning of our operations in Afghanistan I've said that our number one priority and focus needs to be on the stability of Pakistan, and that is as true now as then. OTOH, I really don't know what the best course is with this focus in mind. I'm hoping and trusting that the Obama administration will be competent in this and hope that the left will give them the political room to do what is needed. 9344. wabbit - 4/8/2009 4:26:59 PM …Piracy has become a multi-million dollar business in Somalia, which has limped along since 1991 without a functioning central government. A captured Ukrainian arms freighter hijacked off Somalia’s coast in 2008, for example, was released in February when its owners paid $3.2 million in cash, dropped by parachute.
Armed with automatic weapons, the pirates often attack the large merchant ships from small speed boats, and then scale the towering ship hulls with hooks and ropes and overpower the merchant crews, which are generally unarmed.
To extend their reach from shore, the pirates have begun operating from floating outposts known as “mother ships” — often captured fishing trawlers which can serve as bases for the smaller speedboats as they lie in wait. The crews are generally not harmed by the pirates…
I suppose as long as there are hostages, the alternative to paying ransom is unacceptable, but can't these ships carry armed personnel?9345. Wombat - 4/8/2009 8:12:06 PM There has been a philosophical dispute among shipowners and flagging states over arming the crew (or putting an armed detatchment on board civilian vessels). Before the Somalia episodes--and perhaps still--most pirate attacks were of the board, steal what isn't tied down, and get the hell off, variety. It was thought that the crew's safety was best served by having them stay out of the way and not resist, since insurance would cover any material losses.
Perhaps a re-think is in order.
|
