Rand Corp: “No battlefield solution to terrorism”

43% of the terrorist groups studied by the Rand Corp. ended because members joined the political process, 40% because they were arrested or killed – and only 7% was due to military action. The remaining 10% achieved victory.

The United States also should avoid the use of the term, “war on terror,” and replace it with the term “counterterrorism.” Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using “war on terror,” and Jones said it’s more than a mere matter of semantics.

“The term we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use,” Jones said. “Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.”


  1. That assumes the administration wants to actually end terrorism– something of which I remain unconvinced. A “war” footing justifies a lot of executive power, economic manipulation, and various incompetences and excesses. I continue to believe that Bush and Al-Queda need each other.

  2. Duh.

    Caveat: A few years ago I, with my Willie Nelson hair and beard, did some I-tubes research for them, with the butch (bitch?) haircuts, and quite frankly thought they were (are) a bunch of idiots. Grant I think everyone is a bunch of idiots, but… how much money does the Vast Reichwing Conspiracy pay them? Or more accurately, how much money do they pay Vast Reichwing Conspiracy?

    Caveat2: Ahem, we all worship at the alter of Adam Smith.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.