I read an article in the New Yorker, I believe in the beginning of the summer. The author has spent a significant amount of time in Iraq. I am certain I posted about this article before.

For this article, the author spent time with a division headed by someone who firmly believes in the "liitle bit of honey" method. The division commander knew the names of all the Iraqi leaders of the local town, as well as their families names. This division suffered little to no casualities while taking over a town.

The author then interviewed another division. No one in this division even knew the the names of the villages they were attempting to enter. This division had suffered siginificant casualties.
The author t

>Hi Jim,
>
>Can you provide an example of where honey worked with terrorists? Where the country is not a target of terrorism now because of that tactic? Where the country did not basically placate the terrorists (give in to them) and that country is not now an immediate target because another larger target is more important?
>
>The problem I have with using honey is that terrorism will work. It will achieve its goal. As long as bigger more important immediate targets exist, honey may suffice. What happens when a larger more immediate target no longer exists? Won't the terrorists move on to the smaller less important targets? In the past that has been the case. Afterall, if given the goal of extremists (convert the world to ISLAM and behead those who do not convert - I posted that link previously) still exists, then no one is safe.
>
>Found it:
>http://breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7H9OO0.html
>
>>SNIP
>>
>>Hi Peter,
>>I'm not Walter but I seem to have similar views on these 2 wars...
>>
>>>>
>>>>Afghanistan was understandable. Iraq is a different matter.
>>>
>>>So, your CURRENT viewpoint is that Afghanistan was understandable?! And will that still be your viewpoint if the Taliban succeed in their strategy to frustrate the current Afghanistan government, the allied forces and the NGO's (http://www.ngo.org/index2.htm)?
>>
>>The world was basically in agreement that the Afghanistan war was justified after repeated attempts to have Bin Laden and his cohorts turned over to external authorities failed. Also (at least as we in North America and probably the world were 'primed' for it) the Taliban was more like a bunch of legalized terrorists themselves. Legalized because they were in power and running the country and terrorists because they had 'laws' that widely disrespected human rights and human life.
>>Unfortunately, the agenda of the U.S. was such that they left (leaving a token force) to go into Iraq before the job was finished in Afghanistan. The price is now being paid by all countries participating in that war. And I am quite sure that as soon as Bin Laden is killed/captured, most remaining troops will be withdrawn by most countries
>>>
>>>I think your current viewpoint about Iraq would be a different one if there was less or no terrorism in Iraq. I think you are a clear example of someone who those terrorists have successfully influenced.
>>
>>Well *my* viewpoint would surely be different today if there was no terrorism going on in Iraq! I was against that war from the start. I feel that once it started the U.S. (and U.K.) had to "finish the job", which means to leave only after there is stability, security (for all residents) and an infrastructure re-built to pre-war levels.
>>BUT... I blame the U.S. especially, and the U.K. too, for the current state of affairs in Iraq.
>>It is now well agreed that they had far far too few troops at victory to maintain law and order. Too few troops made it much easier for the terror-inclined to get around, gather weapons, get organized, etc. Every country that is NOT curshed develops a resistance movement rather quickly and everyone knew this. Yet they made conditions perfect for this to happen. Don't forget, all Baathists were 'fired' and made non-eligible for government jobs and all military personnel were fired. So not only was security ignored at victory, but the number of potential resistance members was made huge by firing all those people.
>>Those people weren't "terrorists" in the traditional sense, they were members of the resistance fighting to liberate their country from foreign invaders. HOWEVER, Iraq becaome a collecting place and a breeding ground for all others who had some grievance against the "west" and we got where we are today.
>>
>>We have 2 different wars (allegedly) to "fight terrorism", both originally judged to end quickly and make the world more secure from terrorists. What we got was a huge increase in the number of terrorists and wider spread of terrorism by sympathizers around the world.
>>I don't know if war can end terrorism. Terrorists who later became called "freedom fighters" won their causes because occupiers (generally) were worn down to capitulation by vastly INFERIOR forces.
>>So far, as the 2 subject wars have been executed, the cycle seems ready to repeat itself. And a huge difference between these wars and others is that previous wars were all basically localized. The 2 present wars (as the USSR/Afghanistan war a few years back) have "involved" Muslims (of the fundamentalist variety) from around the world. They have either gone to the conflicts to participate or have chosen to do terrorism where they live.
>>
>>It still looks to me that honey may be more effective than vinegar to end terrorism. I believe that countries that use standard police methods are proving to be more effective than countries that are too anxious to use their might in this fight. Unless a country is crushed - an option that is not legitimate in today's world - there will be resistance. ANd resistance has a history of success over time.