Is our presence around the world encouraging / creating terrorism?

COL Lee Flemming — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:44:23 -0400

http://thinkbynumbers.org/terrorism/suicide-terrorism-statistics/

In a post earlier today SrA Edward Vong sagely highlighted that nation building along with military action may be desired. The question that I raise above contends that our presence may be the catalyst to terrorist action. The article bears some of that out in a fact based by the numbers way.

What Really Causes Terrorism? It’s Not Your Freedom.

FACT 1: 95% ofsuicide terrorist attacks are targeted atoccupyingforeign militaries. FACT 2: 0% of suicideterroristattacks have been directed at countries not militarily involved in geopolitica…

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2016 10:53 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:53:21 -0400

Here's a thought: instead of picking ONLY those terrorist acts that FOLLOW our troop increases, what about looking at ALL major terrorist action? OF COURSE it's going to look like we're "causing" or "provoking" terrorism if you only look at what happens AFTER we move.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Aug 16 at 2016 10:55 AM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:55:24 -0400

As we attempt to attrit the Centers of Gravities of our enemies, they respond with an external expansion of attacking the soft underbellies of society.

Response by SrA Chris "Shadow" McGee made Aug 16 at 2016 11:01 AM

SrA Chris "Shadow" McGee — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:01:15 -0400

It isn't just our presence around the world, but the fact that the rest of the world knows it has us stretched thin at home. It is time we started taking care of ourselves a little more and not be a babysitter to the rest of the world. The increased U.S. attacks alone show that we should be concentrating on securing our borders and not multiple countries around the globe.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Aug 16 at 2016 11:04 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:04:58 -0400

Just a gut reaction is that yes, the presence of the US Military is a major irritant to people around the world. Drone strikes that kill innocents have got to be affecting people like the truck driver in Nice, the Paris shooters and others.

Walt

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 16 at 2016 11:10 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:10:14 -0400

Which came first: The attack or the counter attack? There is magic in words. Alakazam, and an attack is launched. The next battle is one of words: Who attacked first. I am tempted to pin that dishonor on the attack of 9/11, thereby justifying the response. Others may attribute another incident that "inspired" the attack of 9/11. From there, as the chart depicts, the war of terror escalated. What the chart fails to depict is which came first, the rise in engagement or the rise in terrorism? We need a finer timeline to distinguish that.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Aug 16 at 2016 11:11 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:11:47 -0400

To a degree, I would say yes.

Increasing our presence in hostile countries can create further hostility, especially when we are in occupation of what some may define as under educated, and unstable regions. Local propaganda will encourage locals to retaliate against our presence, why? Because we're in their country and they want us out. We believe we are in the right and so do they. If a foreign nation were to increase their presence here, we would do the same and retaliate.

Response by SFC Jeff L. made Aug 16 at 2016 11:14 AM

SFC Jeff L. — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:14:22 -0400

In order to follow this line of thinking we would have to also assume that attacks by muslims in France, Sweden, Thailand and others is also because of their military presence and nation building efforts. Muslims were probably mad at the Italians for their military might when they attacked the Achille Lauro back in 1985.

Now, I'm no great thinker of thoughts, but it seems to me that they really don't need an external excuse to carry out terroristic acts. They give themselves plenty of reasons and excuses to do what they do.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Aug 16 at 2016 11:23 AM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:23:01 -0400

I briefly looked over this and immediately noticed it appears to cherry pick the data by only showing the period between 1993 through 2005. To truly show a correlation of troop presence to terrorist activity against US citizens, I would like to see post 2005 and pre 1993 as well. Also, the article speaks initially to two so called "facts". One of which included "95% of suicide terrorist attacks are targeted at occupying foreign militaries." How does that explain the targeting of Christians in Iraq (or Iraqi citizens themselves)? What about the attacks in Pakistan by extremist element trying to influence the Pakistan government? I could come up with more examples but essentially I really don't think the premise of this article is accurate.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2016 11:28 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:28:50 -0400

We can note there's several factors at work here. The Taliban isn't conducting as many suicide attacks in Afghanistan pre-2001 since they own the country. In Iraq, Saddam had managed to quell Sunni Wahhabism through a brutal dictatorship. Once those repressive governments fell, that opened the flood gates for religious radicals seeking jihad since a fight was now on their back door.

The proximity of the desired target population for terrorism (Westerners) fueled the rise in attacks. We'd also note an increase in terror attacks following the US withdrawal from Iraq despite troop levels in the area dropping dramatically. It's the same concept as picking target priority. Pape's argument is that terrorists only fight countries that are engaged in geopolitical disputes. However, in 2007 bin Laden demanded that the US convert to Islam or he would wage jihad against us. Daesh stated in their Dabiq magazine that they would conquer the world for Islam and raise their flag over the Vatican. This is where Pape's argument falls flat. He's discounting the long-term goals of jihadists for their responses to immediate enemies who they need to defeat first to establish legitimacy and ensure the survival and spread of their ideological views. Expending resources to kill Venezuelan Catholics is great, but they got bigger fish to fry first.

Terrorism has increased because terrorism is theater, and globalization has given these radicals an audience, where even 100 years ago, hardly anyone would have heard about these conflicts. What's more, 100 years ago our society could stomach doing what was necessary to get rid of an ideological enemy. This solution is war in its purest form, not the surgical tip-toeing we do today, but the destruction of the society which holds those views. We have tried to humanize a process which is inherently inhumane, but the sad fact remains that the only society that has ever pacified this religious group was the Mongols, and they stacked heads in pyramids. Consider that in 1938 only 7% of Germany was Nazi Party members. Today, according to the Gallop Center for Muslim studies, 36.6% of Muslims in the Middle East feel that 9/11 was at least partially justified. The peaceful majority in both instances has been irrelevant. Even in the UK, 1 out of 3 Muslim males in university feel that death is an appropriate punishment for apostasy. What's more, we're allied with the Saudis and their own internal politics are so riddled with Wahhabists that even the royals are unable to address the growing radicalism without risking revolt. Keep in mind while our society is able to empathize with a suffering population that they see on TV, the opposite is largely not true for the people in the Middle East and this puts us at a distinct disadvantage.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2016 11:34 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:34:33 -0400

Sir, I am sure a lot of people have been discussing this issue because it has been the national security biggest challenge the USA had to deal with in the past 20 years.
While it could sound appeasing to fight terror organizations in their nests, results will always be mixed. In today's hybrids conflicts (you can destroy enemy military assets with a missile but a drone will only have a very low impact on their ideology, if not the opposite effect - Elie Tenenbaum) it's hard to implement a strategy effective to solve every problems. However, let us not fall in statistics out of their contexts (missions from 1993 to 2005 had been very different, same as our enemies) and assume that correlation proves causation.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 16 at 2016 12:20 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:20:16 -0400

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/06/13/how-iraq-unraveled-since-the-u-s-withdrawal-in-10-steps/

How Iraq unraveled since the U.S. withdrawal, in 10 steps

These events have been coming for a while.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2016 1:04 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:04:57 -0400

I personally think that the United States (various agencies of it) has been "making a bed" for many decades that we are now finding out "we have to sleep in, too." It is a subject far too volatile for this site.

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Aug 16 at 2016 2:57 PM

SSG Ralph Watkins — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:57:50 -0400

I believe the data set you are using to make your point is not making a very good argument. Lets take this back to my era. The glorious 80s. In El Salvador, Roman Catholic nuns were murdered by Salvadoran military authorities. People called for the closure of the School of the Americas since those military members were all graduates. There was a huge amount of support for this. Out of the tens of thousands of graduates from all over Latin American, a handful of bad apples were produced. Nobody saw that the school taught people in Latin America our values, our laws, our ethics. They didn't see partnerships built between nations, governments, & members of multiple militaries. Other slaughters, issues, & even wars were most likely averted by such a school. In any given operation, especially in the asymmetrical world, there is difficulty in parties understanding what is going on. Kassim's uncle Ahmed leave for "work" every morning with an AK over his shoulder. He doesn't wear a uniform. Kassim loves his favorite uncle. Ahmed doesn't come home one day & the family says the American killed him. The family may or many not tell little Kassim the details. Ahmed could have been a fighter for the Islamic State. To him, the Americans took away his favorite uncle & yes, he could be turn out to be a terrorist some day. On the other hand, Kassim's uncle Ahmed may come home & tell of stories fighting the Daesh & say he was about to die when an American soldier saved him. It's all on circumstance, not a matter of troop levels.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2016 5:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:57:13 -0400

Arab and Persian nations in the Middle East have a long list of grievances against the West. Specifically against the British and French empires, that began dividing the land and exploiting the regions resources. Hostility to those Empires caused them to embrace the Axis powers and their treatment after WW2 ended only made matters worse. As the Western powers eventually pulled back they left brutal dictatorships in their wake to continue looking out for the interests of Western powers. When the people did manage to democratically elect leaders that served their interests, those leaders were overthrown and replaced with leasers that served Western interests.

While asymmetric warfare is as old as conflict itself, the reestablishment of the state of Israel may be one of the first examples of terrorism being used to successfully establish a nation. Islamic extremists learned exactly how effective terror could be when the Jewish Irgun And Lehi Gangs helped drive Britain and the UN to establish the State of Israel. Every attempt by the people of the region to engage modern Western powers through symmetric warfare has been a complete failure for the past several hundred years. Conversely, with the help of the US... asymmetric warfare against the USSR did enable the Taliban to ultimately defeat our common adversary. Not long after that we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and made certain that he wouldn't have the military might to ever take Saudi Arabia.

I'm not sure why we chose to stay in Saudi Arabia after we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, I'm guessing it had something to do with oil. Our continued occupation of the region changed how Islamic Extremists perceived the US and now we were targets along with traditional Western powers like the UK even though we had been arming and training them to fight the USSR not so long ago. The real question that remains though, is why exactly are we still there? We no longer need their oil, we are no longer concerned with keeping communism in check, and we can best keep Islamic extremist attacks against the West in check by paying attention to whats happening in the region and attacking anyone who constitutes a real threat to us from a distance. There is no reason for us to have any boots on the ground at all.

With no US boots on the ground, and no US support for the regional dictatorships, it's likely that that attacks against the US would drop as well.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Aug 16 at 2016 7:41 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:41:31 -0400

Long wars are the deaths of republics. They necessitate slides into imperialism. Only one semi-republican empire had a soft landing from empire and we would do well to study every little piece of that we can and see what we can do to emulate it. And yet. Maybe empire isn't such a bad thing? It seems the natural condition of of creatures to be constantly at war, and we thinking creatures to do so in an organized manner at scale. Peace is an aberration in our long history and geographically and temporally constrained very tightly.

Maybe just enough empire to keep us all alive: 1.) prevent use of nukes 2.) prevent using persistent bio-weapons 3.) compelling aligned responses to natural existential threats and 4.) provide some hefty guidance on existential manmade threats like Strong AI and climate change?

Certainly a lighter touch on this "terrorism" hullaballo.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2016 11:23 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 23:23:03 -0400

Yup they will just stop if we pull out uh huh

Response by COL Charles Williams made Aug 17 at 2016 12:04 AM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:04:45 -0400

Good question COL Lee Flemming and I think the answer is yes and no. Isolationism is a concept that just won't work, but mission creep and over extension have 2nd and 3rd order effects. Our fundamental issue is defining what the threat is, and who the threat is. We have had a hard time with this for years. But, I do not believe bringing everyone home would ensure our safety, unless we decide to run our world regulating economy only in the USA.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Aug 25 at 2016 5:29 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 17:29:21 -0400

tit for Tat, just like ARMY bases and strip bars.