I just read this article on the BBC saying that the Nigerian Army has just rescued about 300 people captured by Boko Haram, and it got me thinking....

Many conventional Armies in this world are very poorly suited for launching effective counter-terror operations. And many of these countries have economic conditions which promote terrorist tactics. Some major examples I'm thinking of are Nigeria, Russia, and many Middle Eastern countries.

So....

What sorts of strategies or tactics do you think armies/countries which are more successful in counter-terror (say, the United States and Israel) or have that countries which are plagued with terrorism problems in their own borders like Russia and Nigeria. And these don't have to be just military tactics. These can also be domestic/international policies, economic conditions, etc.

And I mention the US and Israel (I know they are controversial) because given their scenarios, they have been far more effective in combating and stopping terrorist attacks than many other countries would be if they were in the same scenarios?

inb4hatetrain

The most effective country at stopping terrorist attacks was the UK. Thatcher kept making things worse in NI by trying to beat the IRA with her military. John Major ad Tony Blair did the right thing by talking with the paramilitaries and it lead to the end of the conflict.

So talking is always the best option.

Yeah, it's sort of funny, really. The countries who just use brute military force to respond to terrorism always see the most terrorist attacks and most political instability.

But then on the other hand, the UK faces a different sort of terrorism that Nigeria and Russia face.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on April 28, 2015, 10:15:55 PM

Quote from: Shub-Niggurath on April 28, 2015, 10:11:14 PM

The most effective country at stopping terrorist attacks was the UK. Thatcher kept making things worse in NI by trying to beat the IRA with her military. John Major ad Tony Blair did the right thing by talking with the paramilitaries and it lead to the end of the conflict.

So talking is always the best option.

Yeah, it's sort of funny, really. The countries who just use brute military force to respond to terrorism always see the most terrorist attacks and most political instability.

But then on the other hand, the UK faces a different sort of terrorism that Nigeria and Russia face.

The UK also faces Islamic extremism. Russia faces terrorist from the extreme left to the extreme right, Russia has always been a violent place throughout history so it doesn't surprise me that Russia has to deal with terrorism. And like a lot of African countries, Nigeria is unfortunately "uncivilised" by western standards, who ever introduced Christianity and Islam to the region just made thins worse.

Then we could say that weak national identities play a role in fermenting terrorism. Nearly every country which has been recently (100-ish years) independent from foreign domination has problems with terrorism one way or another. Whether it is politically, economically, or religiously motivated. And comparing national identities of Russia/Nigeria with the UK, well...... We both know which one has a stronger one. >____>