Does Killing Terrorist Leaders Make Any Difference? Scholars Are Doubtful

[rangerrebew]

Does Killing Terrorist Leaders Make Any Difference? Scholars Are Doubtful

The Interpreter

By MAX FISHER AUG. 30, 2016
 

WASHINGTON — It seems obvious: Killing terrorist leaders should weaken their organizations, depriving those groups of strategic direction and ideological appeal. The death of someone like Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, a senior Islamic State figure reported killed on Tuesday in Syria, should seem like a significant setback for the group.

But scholars have struggled to find evidence that killing leaders is an effective way to dismantle terrorist organizations, instead finding ample evidence that it makes little difference. That research seems to apply especially to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, whose attributes make it resilient to losing even a top figure like Mr. Adnani.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/world/middleeast/syria-killing-terrorist-leaders.html?_r=0

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This article would have one to believe just accept surrender and do not fight.  Who are these 'scholars' anyway?  Definitely not military.

What a bunch of crock.

[Fishrrman]

Question:
"Does Killing Terrorist Leaders Make Any Difference?"

Answer:
No.
You pretty much have to kill ALL of them.

Edit:
Even that will work only for a short while.
In time, an entirely new crop of terrorists will spring from the well that generates them.

If you want to end jihadism, you have to destroy "the well" from which jihadis spring.

What -IS- that "well"?

C'mon, you know the answer.
If you don't, you'd better find out what it is pretty durn quickly!