reply to post by learnatic
In answer to your title question, the reason the the US and it's allies are incapable of wiping out the terrorist organisations against which it has
set itself are as follows.
For a start, the small cell structure of the terror networks, means that the big, scary tactics of shock and awe, massive bombardment, use of huge
missiles, tanks, and so on, which make them successful when fighting armies, are pretty impotent in this arena. Everything about the way an army
moves, thinks, and operates, is totally inappropriate to the task of surgically removing a small number of entrenched, un-uniformed enemy agents.
The tactics they employ to try and wipe the enemy out, are also certain to spawn more agents, through obscene collateral damage numbers, that anger
previously non combatant individuals, and make them more likely to take up arms against that which killed their loved ones. Drone strikes are an
example of this. This means that for every one or two terror suspects who are turned to rapidly expanding balls of vapour using this method, four or
five guys are pretty pissed at loosing a loved one, and will attempt to revenge themselves upon those who did the deed. So we actually have a
situation here, where even the methods chosen to wipe out the real hard cases, spawn more terrorists.
Another problem is the fact that a small group of terrorists moves around much easier than a whole battalion of man and machine. Very very rarely, do
terrorist forces make themselves known in large numbers. They move and work in small groups, highly mobile, and familiar with their territory. This
means that they have a very small footprint until the crap hits the fan, at which point , they know exactly how to make things very difficult for
larger concentrations of troops, sent to take them out.
To put it bluntly, all the technology, fighting vehicles, air superiority, naval prowess, and fancy weapons, and even vast numbers of troops, will
NEVER succeed in totally destroying the terror networks, because these tools are too large, too noisy, too easy to see coming, and are ranged against
a target which is too small, too comfortable on its home turf, and too good at concealment, to make it possible to take them out using these means.
But these methods should never have been deployed against such a foe in the first place if you ask me. From day one, the only sort of force that
should have been sent to counter the terrorist threat from Afghanistan, and indeed across the borders there, should have been a plethora of small,
self contained units of assassins, with no records, no insignia, nothing to link one unit to another, and a single mission, that being the silent,
deniable, and collateral light removal of terrorist cells from the face of the planet. This would have the advantage of actually being able to get the
job done, rather than having no hope of doing so at all, and be capable of doing the job without blowing up twenty innocent people for every mad
That the US and UK government saw necessary to drop troops on the ground, rather than send in such small teams of operators as I describe, means that
they never intended to win any kind of victory out there.