You might know it as 'hearts and minds'. Modern warfare demands the use of PR and psychology. People are more resistant to traditional propaganda, and so a new kind of war is required. Symbols are particularly important; an Islamic regiment maintaining peace in Baghdad might have helped, but that's really by the by. The war effort lacked the essential approach necessary to today's warfare. War must be rebadged in every element. Soldiers should not wear khaki when they're on regular patrols. They should be dressed, taught and used to represent the local mythologies of the liberator and the virtuous.

By appealing to a people's own beliefs you gain a measure of protection mere armour is incapable of providing. The British learnt this in India. By coopting the leadership and styles of the Indian people, they were able to limit the outbreak of revolts and unrest. Of course this was not a sophisticated effort, and in the end it all fell through, but that was more than 50 years ago. Our understandings of psychology, sociology, marketing and misdirection are vastly more sophisticated. We should have been better. We were not. That was an inexcusable failure.

We're continuing to fight yesterday's wars today, and it's just not working.



Ah, here's a simple answer to your honest question - you invaded. Ergo, there was war. You didn't have to invade, but you did, and so there was a war. The sanctions and no-fly zone were slowly killing Saddam and there was no evidence he had gained access to any means to strike valuable US targets or that he had negotiated treaties with anti-US terrorist organisations. The invasion could have worked, possibly, but it did create a war. If you didn't want a war in Iraq then you shouldn't have invaded.



Which of course fulfils their primary objective of turning all Islam against the US. Every innocent person killed, imprisoned or renditioned (and now that's an ugly word) in the hunt for al Qaeda is another nail in the coffin of the US' moral authority.

It's a mistake to think of the War on Terror as a War, really. It's a police action, and like any police action the police must demand the respect of the people they operate around. And that respect stems from a belief in the righteousness of the boys in blue.

When US soldiers kidnap innocent civilians, transport them to a country like Egypt and then have them tortured for information and released in Albania, they're going to look bad. Germany has already complained about the kidnapping of their citizens, and the upcoming trial of David Hicks has strongly polarised the Australian people. And we are actual allies! Just think how these actions are perceived in the souks and cafes of the Middle East.

All terrorism seeks to achieve is a change of mind. And it's working. The US has never been more hated in the Middle East than it is now. Eventually you'll get the final war al Qaeda wants, and if you're being honest you'll have no one to blame but yourselves.

When US soldiers kidnap innocent civilians, transport them to a country like Egypt and then have them tortured for information and released in Albania, they're going to look bad. Germany has already complained about the kidnapping of their citizens, and the upcoming trial of David Hicks has strongly polarised the Australian people. And we are actual allies! Just think how these actions are perceived in the souks and cafes of the Middle East.

I would be "very" interested to know when this supposedly happened.

All terrorism seeks to achieve is a change of mind. And it's working. The US has never been more hated in the Middle East than it is now. Eventually you'll get the final war al Qaeda wants, and if you're being honest you'll have no one to blame but yourselves.

It may be the very war that AQ wanted. But I'll tell you one thing. They WON'T win it!

Sorry that style of warfare was done 30 years ago. Let us into your hearts and minds, welcome us with open arms. Or we will rape your women and burn your village to the ground. lol Sorry but its an old joke.



Sorry but you are wrong on this point. The only symbol that has any worth is winning in that part of the world. You have to be perceived the winner or you are a non-starter. This is why it is so easy to buy friends and hard to keep them without money. Fighting for and ideal is not a wise thing to do since the losing side gets killed by the winning side. For this to change there has to be a big ideal. Freedom is that big an ideal. The terrorist kill thousands and still people are signing up to be in the military and work in the government. This is a new concept for that part of the world. You can tell when we are really losing when the numbers of people wanting to be part of the new government drop off sharply. Until that time we are winning big time and that is a symbol that is easy for all to see.



I am not sure this makes any sense since all that you say took place after that Pesky 9/11 thing which was when we could no longer afford to be nice to nutjobs. Especially since sweet, innocent Saddam had set up training camps for Al Qaeda and was providing safe haven for AQ wounded in Afghanistan. Little things like that tend to make people nervous. Or maybe the public statements of selling or giving what little WMD he had to any terrorist who would use them on Israel and oh yeah America. Worthless threats, boastings of an impotent man? Maybe but after 9/11 who wants to take the chance he would follow through? Gee that is the same argument the President used before we went to war in Iraq. Still sounds right to me.
My question is what caused the war started by AQ to be the fault of America?




Ok, before 9/11 AQ numbered 100,000 they have not exceeded that number in the last 6 years so it seems that they did not do that great a job. One billion Muslims world wide and less than 100,000 people who want to kill us. Two fledgling democrocies building in the Middle East something Europeans swore could not be done. Try as the enemies of peace might it is still going forward. Will it come out the way we want it? I don't have a clue but we gave them a chance to do it in what ever way works for them.



Not a police action at all. People are working to kill us. If it were a police action then we would arrest them instead we are killing them. Police arrest, nations at war kill. The Clinton administration tried arresting them and they replied with 9/11 hunting them down seems to be working so far.



Let me see if I get this straight. It is our fault that AQ attacked us in 1993, and in 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, and 2001 but since we have taken to hunting them down now were really in for it? Is this because we are so weak as to hunt them down instead of just letting them kill people a few at a time? It seems that no matter which way we go we are going to have dead Americans might as well go down fighting.

Please forgive my ignorance but I don’t recall solders kidnapping anyone. Could you enlighten me?

Positive thinking is important. I do think though that better use could have been made of that symbol of freedom, but perhaps you're right - the only symbol those fighting in Iraq (on either side is what I suppose you mean) is victory, so there was nothing more to do after Bush landed on that aircraft carrier.



Do you have evidence of this? Beyond the unsupported allegations of the US government I haven't seen anything to suggest this was the case. From most reports Saddam and Osama loathed each other on sight, and in fact Pakistan became the secondary and now main base of operations for al Qaeda.



Where do you get this figure? In any event I'm less than convinced that al Qaeda is really a worldwide organisation. Sure, it has links worldwide, but it's no cohesive body. Most of the fighters in Iraq are members of local militias, most in Afghanistan are Taliban or disenchanted Northern Alliance warlords. If we're looking at hostile enemy powers since 9/11 I would have thought they've grown in number, not reduced. After all Iraq was cowed with regular bombing runs up to 2001; now it requires more than 150000 soldiers and mercenaries.

Just so's you don't get the wrong idea I do think the situation is improving worldwide, but I'm not sure the effect is due solely to the US' invasion of Iraq.



A terrorist's gravitas depends on him being treated as a political criminal. Take away their politics and you rob them of status. It worked for the Brits in Northern Ireland. After treating the terrorists as criminals and negotiating with the politicals they've found a reasonably steady peace. Sometimes doublethink is useful in preventing terrorist crime.



Well considering the US bankrolled Osama for quite some time I would say Al Qaeda is the US' fault. But to be fairer to the intent of your question it might not be America's fault, but that doesn't matter. The terrorists want a fight. Giving them that just makes them stronger. So use other means. Spread lies about them. Lead them into temptation and then broadcast their horrors to the world. Go after their financiers. Suffocate them and divide them from their base (fundamentalists). Eventually they will be unable to recruit, much like the IRA finds itself increasingly unable to recruit.

Oh, and do something about Saudi Arabia. The best thing the US could do to end the threat of Wahhabist Islam is crush the House of Saud and its alliance with the Wahhabist faith. Until that is done extremism will have a safe house in every Saudi-financed mosque in the world. You seem to be well-read - surely you've seen the textbooks mandated by the Saudis. It's no wonder home-grown terrorism is taking off in the UK when you see what Saudi-financed schools are forced to teach. The anti-Semitism alone is bad enough, let alone the attitudes towards women and christians.



Soldiers don't, or at least they shouldn't. In Iraq I think they arrest, don't they? In any event it's the CIA who's been 'renditioning' suspects from across Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia and allegedly sending them to be tortured in torture-friendly countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

One German man who was kidnapped whilst on holiday in Macedonia is suing the CIA: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4504292.stm

This second one discusses rendition but unlike the first story has no official government statement claiming rendition actually happens: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml

If you don't believe the Bolsheviks in the BBC and CBS, then here's a story from FoxNews about the al-Masri/CIA case in Germany: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan31/0,4670,GermanyCIAKidnapping,00.html

It is not my assumption. please follow what they say about us in ALL Middle Eastern countries and you will see what i mean. They are not talking about little political positions here and there, it is the whole US strategy toward them. and remember it was not a government who attacked us. Actually that support for their dictatorial governments is what made the extreme elements among them to consider that the US AND their own governments are their enemies.

It is not what you or I think or say. there is no use to preach to our own choir as they say. If we are trying to understand what is happening, right or wrong, we have to listen to what THEY are saying about us. not what we like to say about ourselves.

post No.1 gave a good reference to what our policies are doing in that region. and that is a good way to see what is the whole picture look like from the outside.

JUST ONE Example: In all US votes in the Security Council regarding anything to do with the Arab/israeli conflict, not once (since 1956) the US voted with them. not only that, we Vetoed every single decision in their favor.

The last time the US voted with them was in 1956 to force the three ocupiers (Israel, Britain and France)from leaving Egypt's land after a planned and unprovoked attack on it. and Even that left Egypt with so many restrictions on what they can and can't do which precipitated the 6-Day war in 1967. From that point on, it is all downhill against them.

whether we are right or wrong in that is not the issue, the issue is WHY they attack us. They are not lying about what we did and we cant deny it. it is all documented in the UN files. so my list or yours are not really the reference here.

If we try to understand why here is the direct and two word answer:Our Policies.

I think you started to get it. That is Exactly what they expect. and i said it many many times. terrorism is an act of desperation not a logical one. I am sure you remember the saying "desperate situations call for disperate measures". That is precisely what they are in. They are not a government, they know that.



Not the way they look at it. Unfortunately, history sides with their view on that point. And that is why the Liberals (as you say) and most of the world are saying we should change our approach to this "war on terror". That is the way they look at it (this is almost word for word from their main-stream news papers, not my assumption. like it or not, agree with it or not that is the way they see it):

No matter what, the USA with all its might, or even the whole world can not and will never be able to eliminate all 350 million Arabs. Sooner or later they believe that time is on their side and they are prepared to pay any price and bear any sacrifice to gain their land back. They always refer to The Crusaders, and to the Tatars and to the Greeks and the Romans and to France and Britain . All ended up leaving licking their wounds and dragging their tails between their legs and the land always returned to its rightful owners. Actually they refer to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan and their eventual defeat there as a recent example. Ironically, we supported them in that effort. Now, they say, it is our turn to leave or to be defeated.

that is how they look at it. History in a way bears them out.

Our own experience bears their view out. Vietnam, Campodia, Korea all are examples of failed attempts to control other people's lands through invasion or by force.

we can look at it this way: They have no where else to go, the invaders can always go back home. And that is what invariably happens.

JUST ONE Example: In all US votes in the Security Council regarding anything to do with the Arab/israeli conflict, not once (since 1956) the US voted with them. not only that, we Vetoed every single decision in their favor.

Lets start with this shall we? To start with it's Israel/"Palastine" conflict not arabs in general.

All recent U.S. Presidents have maintained a policy that Israel must give up some of the land that it conquered in the 1967 war in order to achieve peace; that the Palestinians must actively prevent terrorism; that Israel has an unconditional right to exist; and that the Palestinians should eventually have their own democratic state.

Yeah that really sounds like we're backing Israel. And here's a little more of the "US" backing Israel.

One peace proposal, presented by the Quartet of the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States on September 17, 2002, was the Road map for peace. Israel has also accepted the road map but with 14 "reservations" [1]. The current Palestinian government rejects the proposal. Israel implemented a controversial disengagement plan proposed by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005, when Israel removed all of its civilian and military presence in the Gaza Strip, (namely 21 Jewish

Even though the Palestinians continue to do stupid stuff like this:

Israelis state, as one concern, that official Palestinian media outlets do not appear to move towards reconciliation and tolerance, and often incite hostility towards Israel, making it difficult to make further concessions in this atmosphere Also, many Palestinian people have not accepted many aspects of agreements made with Israel; there are numerous popular Palestinian groups who openly support terrorism, and the PNA refuses to halt or disband these groups. Furthermore, it is difficult to achieve progress when every Israeli action or concern, no matter how accurately-stated or authentic, is labelled by the Palestinians' side as being a mere ploy or a diversion. After repeated Qassam rocket attacks against Israeli civilian populations and the kidnapping of the 19-year-old Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit It is widely felt among Israelis that Palestinians did not in fact promote acceptance of Israel's right to exist. There is much documentary and empirical evidence that Palestinian leaders engaged in ongoing, concerted promotion and support for terrorist activities. Furthermore, many official Palestinian media outlets aired much footage inciting hatred of Israel

Yet we still back Palastine some times and Israel "sometimes". Nothing like what you're quoting though.

So is L Ron Hubbard.

I guess it would come down to opinions yes. Would you want your car mechanic doing open heart surgery? There is a reason there are no Renascence men today. The depth and breadth of knowledge is too great for any one man to know it all - and those that pretend to know the least.

Like i said, my friend, it is not what you or I like it to be. This statement is far off the reality as you can get. The reality is even more scary. I just didnt want to say it. It is not only the Arabs, it is the whole Muslim world that are involved in this conflict. living in our own bubble and think it is "not arabs in general" is a grave mistake. may be that is why many of us can't understand why we were attacked by 'Saudis with Egyptian ring leader'. there was not ONE Palestenian among them. Palestine is much more to the Arabs And Muslims than just a piece of land.





Again, your list or mine are not the reference, look at the whole record not small little jestures here and there. That record is documente in the UN and it is as long as the distance from here to Palestine itself.

We can believe what we wish. it doesnt mean anything. History and the world are watching and we cant control that no matter how much power we have.

I think you miss the point. The modern Palestinians are the Jews prior to the reestablishment of the state of Israel. Once the Jews had the state of Israel the people left behind, called Arabs took the name Palestine, because they were not wanted by the surrounding countries they previously had citizenship with. The ones that were Arabs that did not wish to live in the slums took the offer of Israel to become Israeli citizens. Jews do not make up 100% of the nation. There is a large majority of Israeli citizens that are Muslim Arabs. They are not involved in the terrorism they have businesses and move freely within the nation unlike the “Palestinians” that wish to destroy the state of Israel and kill the Jews. There has been an open offer to the so called Palestinians of citizenship in Israel. These people chose to kill their own youth for the cause rather than live in peace. They were offered their own land which they keep as a slum in order to keep people angry and fighting. This has nothing to do with religion but power and politics. There are no Arab slums in Israel, not like the slums the Palestinians live in. If they want to go to school and live in peace the door has been open to them for 50 years. Arab Israeli citizens are members of the military and not segregated or treated like second class citizens. Why is it no one seems to know this? It does not advance the story that the poor oppressed Palestinians are mistreated by the mean old oppressing Israelis. This is why AQ and other terror groups only bring up the Palestinians when they start to lose to rally the Arab world to their side. You my friend have been fooled by the game being played by Syria for decades. It used to be Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Egypt dropped out because they could see it was not working. Jordan has been silent since the last war. Libya joined in for a while and gave up, Iraq joined in for a minute and we stepped on them, it is now down to Iran and Syria. Even Lebanon has been making secret pacts with Israel for the last 15 years.