So, who's winning the war?

[Paleface]

It has been eight years since al-Qaeda attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon: eight long years in which the "war on terrorism" – begun by George W. Bush in a blaze of righteousness, and since carried on by his successor, in Afghanistan and Pakistan – has been waged on several fronts. So, how are we doing?
No one can honestly say we are winning, or anywhere close to it. Osama bin Laden and the top leadership of al-Qaeda are still at large, still issuing messages mocking their pursuers and vowing fresh terrorist attacks to come. One of those messages, communicated by bin Laden himself in the days before the 2004 presidential election, effectively demonstrates not only our ongoing defeat but also the reason for it:

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

"This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat."

As we race from Afghanistan to Iraq, back to Afghanistan, into Pakistan and now into Yemen, bin Laden must be chortling in his cave, somewhere, contemplating the undoubted success of his strategy. As what the war aficionados and amateur grand strategists call the "Long War" approaches the end of its first decade, the fact that we are losing – and losing badly – cannot have escaped the attention of Western leaders. This is underscored by the most recent attacks – the post-9/11 wave of seemingly minor incidents (or, at least, minor in comparison to what happened on 9/11) – and the Western response.
(read and learn) http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/05/the-long-war-whos-winning/

[Ravenman]

I think it is not a stretch to say that there are some people who believe that no matter what the U.S. does, it will always lose the war on Al Qaeda. Eliminate Bin Laden? Oh noes! That just means someone more dangerous will take his place! Turn Afghanistan into a respectable, but poor state? Oh noes! What happened to rebuilding Afghanistan? Reduce major terror attempts on Western countries to one every three years? Oh noes! That's still too many! Achieve 100% inspection rates for all cargo entering the country? Oh noes! You can still buy fertilizer at a garden supply store!

I believe the article linked to is nothing more than a "heads they win, tails we lose" uninformed bit of isolationist tripe.

The fact is that Al Qaeda will never achieve its goal of a unified, fundamentalist caliphate. NEVER. It is not going to happen. They can never win.

The anti-Al Qaeda position, shared by people as different as the United States government and the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims, is to not be threatened by extremist nuts who target civilians with savage violence. That is a very difficult thing to do, and it is not realistic to believe it will be accomplished within a short period of time. But it is not an unrealistic goal overall, and and we are closer to achieving this outcome than Al Qaeda is to achieve theirs.

[Ravenman]

I believe the article linked to is nothing more than a "heads they win, tails we lose" uninformed bit of isolationist tripe.Oh, and I forgot to call it quasi-racist Truther nonsense, too.

[Dinsdale]

Thought this was pretty well put by columnist Georgie Ann Geyer the other day:

This is what I think history, written a half-century or even a quarter-century from now, will say of all this:

"The United States began the 21st century as the pre-eminent and undisputedly greatest power in the world. It was the center of science, learning and innovation. Its democratic system was the envy of much of the world, which engaged in different experiments in governance but basically always used the American experience as its systemic and structural basis.

"Then, after one attack on New York City in which several thousand Americans tragically died, the United States embarked upon a series of ill-thought-out military adventures across the world that took it into small country after small country, never understanding that its very presence turned people against it. It lost the modesty of its founding fathers, who vowed not to meddle abroad, and began to dream of 'nation-building.' But in the end, it only de-energized and impoverished its own country, as Asia and particularly China moved in on all levels with economic and diplomatic tools to grasp world leadership."

There were many other ways we could have responded to 9/11 besides all-out wars, such as police and intelligence actions against particular al-Qaida actors, but those paths were not chosen.

[John Mace]

(read and learn) http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/05/the-long-war-whos-winning/

Perhaps you could be bothered to define "win" in addition to posting a link.

[Der Trihs]

The fact is that Al Qaeda will never achieve its goal of a unified, fundamentalist caliphate. NEVER. It is not going to happen. They can never win. Neither can we; especially since we've never even bothered to define "winning". We've just flailed around destroying things, killing people; hurting ourselves and producing more enemies.

But it is not an unrealistic goal overall, and and we are closer to achieving this outcome than Al Qaeda is to achieve theirs.
How? We've spent years manufacturing more enemies, inflicting harm upon ourselves. We are weaker in all ways than we were. Al Qaeda if anything is stronger. The "hurt America" part of their agenda has been a spectacular success. We acted for the entire Bush Administration almost as if Bush had been secretly replaced with an Al Qaeda operative; we handed them victory after victory, acting in their interest and not ours.

[The Universe Lashes Out]

"Then, after one attack on New York City in which several thousand Americans tragically died, the United States embarked upon a series of ill-thought-out military adventures across the world that took it into small country after small country, never understanding that its very presence turned people against it.."


This has been going on since way before 9/11.

[XT]

Well, ObL is still issuing his taunts, true enough, but he's doing it on the run and in hiding. Eventually time will take care of him...he's not looking so good these days (well, the last time I bothered to watch part of one of his little spiels).

As for the rest of AQ, they are mostly on the run these days as well. As another poster said earlier, they will NEVER gain their own objectives in the ME, so it's a no win for them.

As for us...well, we'll never win either. You can't fight 'terrorism'...you can only fight terrorists. In Iraq and Afghanistan...well, I don't know. What constitutes a 'win', and are we willing to pay the price to achieve it?

-XT

[Der Trihs]

As for us...well, we'll never win either. You can't fight 'terrorism'...you can only fight terrorists.
Exactly. You could kill every terrorist on Earth, magically erase the very concept from records and people's minds; and all that would happen is that someone, somewhere would re-invent it. Probably pretty quickly too. You can't "win" against terrorism any more than you can "win" against crime or dishonesty.

[kingbighair]

The war on terror is a double edged sword. It gives the aggressor the ability, almost carte blanche, to attempt to stop terrorism around the world. However, once ending terrorism is accepted as the putative goal of military action, it becomes unwinnable almost by definition.

So Bush was either an idiot in thinking he could stop a tactic, or a genius in knowing the war would outlast his presidency and fall into his successor's lap. Based on how quickly we Americans forget history (see blaming Democrats for the economic mess), I am thinking we didn't give him enough credit.

To answer the question, who is winning the war is begging the question. There is no war. It is foolish ad hoc drunken swinging punches.

[MrDibble]

I think it is not a stretch to say that there are some people who believe that no matter what the U.S. does, it will always lose the war on Al Qaeda. Eliminate Bin Laden? Oh noes! That just means someone more dangerous will take his place!
Well, call us when you do this first thing, mmmkay?

[XT]

So that 'you' can whine and complain about how we hounded an old man to ground and then killed him? What would 'we' do that?? Or were you speaking literally and think that Ravenman is going to personally kill ObL? There has been some talk about dropping him into the wilds of Pakistan with a butter knife...

-XT

[Ravenman]

Neither can we; especially since we've never even bothered to define "winning". We've just flailed around destroying things, killing people; hurting ourselves and producing more enemies. From Obama's Dec 1 speech: "Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future."

How? We've spent years manufacturing more enemies, inflicting harm upon ourselves. We are weaker in all ways than we were. Al Qaeda if anything is stronger. The "hurt America" part of their agenda has been a spectacular success. We acted for the entire Bush Administration almost as if Bush had been secretly replaced with an Al Qaeda operative; we handed them victory after victory, acting in their interest and not ours.Iraq was a huge mistake. It moved us backwards, definitely. But if you haven't been paying attention, Al Qaeda in Iraq is a shadow of what it was 2 years ago. Some may say it has been all but destroyed; I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but it has certainly been broken.

Unfortunately, you make the same mistake that the article makes in using remarkably different standards to judge "winning" by either party. We kill Al Qaeda's #3 man (for like the 10th time), but we "lose" because we're "flailing around, blowing things up, making people mad." Meanwhile, they send incompetents on failed missions and they win. In reality, killing Al Qaeda leadership brings us many times closer to our goal than anything Al Qaeda can possibly do to achieve their goal.

It is entirely possible for Al Qaeda to be rendered irrelevant and ineffective, as other terrorist groups have been. It is impossible for Al Qaeda to succeed in their Caliphate. If Al Qaeda can never win, they can't be winning.

[MrDibble]

So that 'you' can whine and complain about how we hounded an old man to ground and then killed him?That's what you got from my post? Okaaay:confused: What would 'we' do that??
I don't know, ask Ravenman, he's the one who seems to think you've eliminated Osama

[Ravenman]

Or were you speaking literally and think that Ravenman is going to personally kill ObL? There has been some talk about dropping him into the wilds of Pakistan with a butter knife...I prefer a compound bow. (http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Rambo-sideshow-2.jpg)

[Wraps my silk tie around my forehead]

[Ravenman]

I don't know, ask Ravenman, he's the one who seems to think you've eliminated OsamaApparently I also think we've succeeded in inspecting 100% of the cargo coming into the country, succeeded in fixing Afghanistan, and stopped terror attacks in the West.

I must ask myself a question: is it worth debating with those who do not read what I actually write?

[CoolHandCox]

No one can honestly say we are winning, or anywhere close to it. Osama bin Laden and the top leadership of al-Qaeda are still at large, still issuing messages mocking their pursuers and vowing fresh terrorist attacks to come.

I like how we're not winning because OBL is mocking us. If your enemy posts a video on youtube that mocks you and says they will attack you again = losing and nowhere close to winning.

I mean, there are so many better reasons to say we're losing other than we're being mocked. Unreal.

[Ravenman]

I like how we're not winning because OBL is mocking us. If your enemy posts a video on youtube that mocks you and says they will attack you again = losing and nowhere close to winning..Perhaps our goal in Afghanistan should be to wipe the damn smirk off the faces of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Also, get them to gas the car up after they borrow it for the night. If they return the tank less than a quarter full, the terrorists win.

[Nametag]

I prefer a compound bow. (http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Rambo-sideshow-2.jpg)

[Wraps my silk tie around my forehead]

And ties it in a compound bow?

[Der Trihs]

Iraq was a huge mistake. It moved us backwards, definitely. But if you haven't been paying attention, Al Qaeda in Iraq is a shadow of what it was 2 years ago. Some may say it has been all but destroyed; I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but it has certainly been broken.In other words, it's ahead of where it was when we started. Before the war it was only there because we protected it from Saddam. And the death of Saddam and the destruction of secularism in Iraq, and the general bloodshed and anarchy would be a huge victory for Al Qaeda even if every last one of them were killed. The damage they has done has grossly exceeded their losses. There just isn't enough of them in existence for us to do the same harm in return.

And it doesn't really matter if we were to utterly destroy Al Qaeda somehow; we've already done more damage to ourselves that they ever could have. And they'll just be replaced at most; killing them all doesn't mean they lose.

And there's also the problem that Al Qaeda is really more of a brand name than an organization; how do you destroy that? We have placed ourselves in the position of a nation determined not to destroy the Nazis, but to destroy the swastika.

Unfortunately, you make the same mistake that the article makes in using remarkably different standards to judge "winning" by either party. We kill Al Qaeda's #3 man (for like the 10th time), but we "lose" because we're "flailing around, blowing things up, making people mad." Meanwhile, they send incompetents on failed missions and they win. What makes you think that "crotch bomber" mission was a failure? It got us to flail about some more, hurt ourselves more, make ourselves look like idiots yet again. They sacrificed an incompetent to succeed.

[mlees]

Heh. So that was the real plan all along? To get us to flail around?

"Uhhh.... we MEANT to do that. Yeah... we didn't want to actually kill anyone. We just like poking the anthill with a stick, and watch you guys scurry around! Yeah... that's the ticket!"

They're craftier than we thought!

[Silverstreak Wonder]

But are we even killing many enemy? I never hear any totals like we ought to of how many enemy dies today. Even worse, where are all the prisoners of war, all we hear about is Gitmo that is many years old, where are all the prisoners we have, and how many of ours do they have? I only hear of that one Army guy who walked off in the night. If there are no prisoners being taken we are sure not winning a war, so look at that.

[Ravenman]

In other words, it's ahead of where it was when we started.That's a fair question, but you make it sound like Al Qaeda in Iraq sprang forth from Zeus' head the moment we invaded. In fact, the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq WENT to Iraq from other places. Zarqawi, for example, is not Iraqi; and the whole reason Sunni militias turned on AQI is because they were foreigners who were killing more Iraqis than Americans.

The damage they has done has grossly exceeded their losses. There just isn't enough of them in existence for us to do the same harm in return.They did extraordinary a lot of killing, true; but I believe you have said yourself that these terrorists aren't just out to kill people because they're psychopaths (correct me if I'm wrong), but they have a specific agenda. The agenda of throwing Iraq into civil war has failed, they haven't driven the US out of Iraq (or any other part of the Middle East), and for all the bloodshed they are responsible for, they're no closer to their ultimate goal.

What makes you think that "crotch bomber" mission was a failure? It got us to flail about some more, hurt ourselves more, make ourselves look like idiots yet again. They sacrificed an incompetent to succeed.I would not describe Osama bin Laden as the Nelson Muntz of Arabia, who really just seeks to go "haw-haw!" whenever we scurry around to reassess security measures. He surely believes that killing people is the way to achieve his objectives. And, for the hundredth time, there is nothing about the crotch bomber that has gotten AQ one millimeter closer to its goal of a Caliphate.

[elucidator]

A quibble. Minor point, perhaps, but that's the trouble with quibbles....

"Rebuild Afghanistan"? Rebuild what?! What has there ever been to "rebuild"? We could devote twenty percent of our GDP into "rebuilding" Afghanistan and in ten years time it will still suck. We will build schools! Well, sure, just as soon as we build the roads so we can buy the trucks to take the books to the schoolhouse.

God should make a burrito He cannot eat. And then He can rebuild Afghanistan. We won't, its that damn simple.

[ElvisL1ves]

We can rebuild the stuff we've bombed.

Or just send each Afghan kid a dollar from one of our kids, like GWB asked once.

[kingbighair]

Maybe we can give them some arms and get them to mess with China.

[MrDibble]

Apparently I also think we've succeeded in inspecting 100% of the cargo coming into the country, succeeded in fixing Afghanistan, and stopped terror attacks in the West.
So you were assigning hypothetical arguments to your ideological opponents, and arguing against those? A novel tactic...

[Hampshire]

It's sort of like asking the question "Who's winning the war on crime in America?" then poinitng out when each cities police force was created and then saying "It's been over a century and Baltimore still has police on the streets and crime certainly hasn't ended. What a failure."
A war on terror can never be "won" just like a war on crime can never be "won".
The old saying "Cut the head off the snake and the body dies" just doesn't hold water. We caught Sadam in 2003 and executed him in 2006 and we're still in Iraq to this day. Getting rid of Bin Laden would be just as effective.

The best you can do is attempt to control or contain it. And that will take a never ending commitment to do so. The whole concept of "win" needs to be taken out of the equation.

[Der Trihs]

Heh. So that was the real plan all along? To get us to flail around?

"Uhhh.... we MEANT to do that. Yeah... we didn't want to actually kill anyone. We just like poking the anthill with a stick, and watch you guys scurry around! Yeah... that's the ticket!"

They're craftier than we thought!
Craftier than who? Quite a few people have been pointing out for years that we have been doing far more damage to ourselves than they ever could, and saying that was likely the point. And people right after the "crotch bomber" hit the news and all those new security restrictions were noised about, pointed out that that was exactly the sort of thing Al Qaeda was likely hoping for.

They did extraordinary a lot of killing, true; No; that would be us. We've killed far more than them, generally in ways that helped Al Qaeda.

The agenda of throwing Iraq into civil war has failed, they haven't driven the US out of Iraq (or any other part of the Middle East), and for all the bloodshed they are responsible for, they're no closer to their ultimate goal.Of course they are closer; America is badly damaged, Saddam is gone; secularism in Iraq broken; democracy in the Middle East discredited. All victories for them.

And, for the hundredth time, there is nothing about the crotch bomber that has gotten AQ one millimeter closer to its goal of a Caliphate.It caused us to hurt ourselves just that little bit more.

[gonzomax]

Thought this was pretty well put by columnist Georgie Ann Geyer the other day:

This is what I think history, written a half-century or even a quarter-century from now, will say of all this:

"The United States began the 21st century as the pre-eminent and undisputedly greatest power in the world. It was the center of science, learning and innovation. Its democratic system was the envy of much of the world, which engaged in different experiments in governance but basically always used the American experience as its systemic and structural basis.

"Then, after one attack on New York City in which several thousand Americans tragically died, the United States embarked upon a series of ill-thought-out military adventures across the world that took it into small country after small country, never understanding that its very presence turned people against it. It lost the modesty of its founding fathers, who vowed not to meddle abroad, and began to dream of 'nation-building.' But in the end, it only de-energized and impoverished its own country, as Asia and particularly China moved in on all levels with economic and diplomatic tools to grasp world leadership."

There were many other ways we could have responded to 9/11 besides all-out wars, such as police and intelligence actions against particular al-Qaida actors, but those paths were not chosen.
The generals and the military contractors have won. Blackwater and the other providers of military functions have done quite well.

[theR]

Heh. So that was the real plan all along? To get us to flail around?

"Uhhh.... we MEANT to do that. Yeah... we didn't want to actually kill anyone. We just like poking the anthill with a stick, and watch you guys scurry around! Yeah... that's the ticket!"

They're craftier than we thought!

Terrorism is meant to cause terror, no? It seems that they've succeeded wildly at making the USA waste resources, time, and money while also terrorizing people into irrational fears. The 2000s weren't even significantly different from other decades in terms of deaths per billion enplanements (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/skies-are-as-friendly-as-ever-911-al.html) and it would be nearly impossible to successfully repeat September 11 using aircraft. Yet every unsuccessful attempt provokes significant overreaction and dedication of resources from the USA (and other countries).

TSA: "Misapplying tomorrow's technologies to counter yesterday's threats. (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/tsa_logo_contes.html)"

[Ravenman]

And people right after the "crotch bomber" hit the news and all those new security restrictions were noised about, pointed out that that was exactly the sort of thing Al Qaeda was likely hoping for.Ok, so you disagree and think that Bin Laden is the Nelson Muntz of Arabia. I happen to take the position that just because an enemy taunts you, doesn't mean he's succeeding. Like how Saddam Hussein claimed that he won Gulf War I. In reality, the crotch bomber failed, and Iraq lost the war.

Of course they are closer; America is badly damaged, Saddam is gone; secularism in Iraq broken; democracy in the Middle East discredited. All victories for them.Victories in the sense that a football team loses 42-0, but has some really good punts in there! Iraq (whether the people or the government) is no closer today than it has been at any time to supporting AQ or pan-Islamic salafism in any way, shape or form. It was Iraqi militias (paid by the US) that have dealt a severe blow to AQ. The idea that AQ is now in a good position in Iraq is either laboring under three-year old news or suffering from the syndrome I described earlier in which everything AQ does is a victory for itself:

Blow up an airplane? Victory. Fail to blow up an airplane? Victory. Leaders don't get blown up by drone missiles? Victory. Leaders do get blown up by missiles? Victory. Al Qaeda in Iraq gaining in strength? Victory. Al Qaeda in Iraq decimated by Iraqi militias? Victory.

[XT]

Heads they win, tails we lose...

-XT

[Der Trihs]

I happen to take the position that just because an enemy taunts you, doesn't mean he's succeeding. When his "taunts" make you do what he wants, then he's winning.

Victories in the sense that a football team loses 42-0, but has some really good punts in there!More like a guy on the college football team gets stabbed, the stabber gets beaten up, and then the football team burns down their own campus in a tantrum.

Iraq (whether the people or the government) is no closer today than it has been at any time to supporting AQ or pan-Islamic salafism in any way, shape or form.Saddam, an enemy of Al Qaeda is dead; secularism is largely destroyed, democracy discredited across the whole region. Those are huge victories for Al Qaeda whether you like it or not.

It was Iraqi militias (paid by the US) that have dealt a severe blow to AQ. The idea that AQ is now in a good position in Iraq is either laboring under three-year old news or suffering from the syndrome I described earlier in which everything AQ does is a victory for itselfThe fact that they are in any position of significance at all is farther along than they were before we invaded.

Blow up an airplane? Victory. Fail to blow up an airplane? Victory. What you are ignoring is that blowing up the airplane isn't the point. Hurting America is the point.

Leaders don't get blown up by drone missiles? Victory. Leaders do get blown up by missiles? Victory. They are expendable. And that assumes that we actually are killing "leaders", or even Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda in Iraq gaining in strength? Victory. Al Qaeda in Iraq decimated by Iraqi militias? Victory.
Again; being "decimated" still leaves them far ahead of where they were. Unless they are gone, then they are still ahead of where they were.

[Ravenman]

When his "taunts" make you do what he wants, then he's winning.I had the same feeling when I was 6. If my older sibling told me to do something, and I did it, then she was winning. At some point I grew up and realized that you don't win by mindlessly doing the opposite of what someone tells you to.

Saddam, an enemy of Al Qaeda is dead; secularism is largely destroyed, democracy discredited across the whole region. Those are huge victories for Al Qaeda whether you like it or not. Is anyone in the Iraqi government a friend of Al Qaeda? No. Did Al Qaeda destroy secularism? No. Arguably the US did, but that is another matter, and in any case, for the third time, it was SUNNIS who beat the crap out of AQI, so again, AQI failed to exploit religious divisions.

I have no clue why you say democracy is discredited: the elections in Iraq have gone fairly well, Iranians are out in the streets risking jail and torture to protest a bogus election, and the prospects of elections in Saudi Arabia and Syria remain at the exact same state as pre-2001. So, I think you're just making this up.

What you are ignoring is that blowing up the airplane isn't the point. Hurting America is the point.Serious question: do you believe AQ has a political agenda? What do you believe that agenda is, and do you think they can achieve it?

[mswas]

Theres no winning. Casting this as a war was a mistake. It should be considered as basically a criminal problem. Sure, well armed and nasty criminals, but nonetheless criminals. This is just the kind of thing that we should expect to happen for as long as there are dynamic disparaties in wealth and power between the first world and the third world.

[Der Trihs]

I had the same feeling when I was 6. If my older sibling told me to do something, and I did it, then she was winning. At some point I grew up and realized that you don't win by mindlessly doing the opposite of what someone tells you to.Well, we need to grow up then; something I see no sign of.

No. Did Al Qaeda destroy secularism? No. Arguably the US did, but that is another matter,No, it's not. What matters is that it was done; we did for them, what they couldn't.

I have no clue why you say democracy is discredited: the elections in Iraq have gone fairly well, Iranians are out in the streets risking jail and torture to protest a bogus election, and the prospects of elections in Saudi Arabia and Syria remain at the exact same state as pre-2001. Nonsense. The "elections" in Iraq consisted of us threatening people into voting for canidates we considered acceptable; and the democracy movement took a major hit. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501893.html)

Horror at the bloodshed accompanying the U.S. effort to bring democracy to Iraq has accomplished what human rights activists, analysts and others say Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had been unable to do by himself: silence public demands for democratic reforms here.

Serious question: do you believe AQ has a political agenda? What do you believe that agenda is, and do you think they can achieve it?
I think they have poorly defined ultimate goals, because they are a poorly defined group. I doubt they can achieve most of their various ultimate goals; but they've made great progress on interim ones.

[Ravenman]

No, it's not. What matters is that it was done; we did for them, what they couldn't.But who cares? Does a non-secular Iraq help Al Qaeda? No, it doesn't, because there's no signs that Iraq is adopting a salafist kind of government. It's funny how you are so willing to paint Iraq as a hotbed of religious zealotry, but totally deny there's any kind of democratic trend there. Truth is that Iraq is neither secular nor extremist; neither Jeffersonian democracy nor dictatorship. The black and white view you insist on seems conveniently tilted to meet your expectations.

Nonsense. The "elections" in Iraq consisted of us threatening people into voting for canidates we considered acceptable; and the democracy movement took a major hit. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501893.html)As soon as I posted that last message, I knew you were going to post a three year old article. You did not disappoint, in fact, you exceeded expectations by posting one nearly 4 years old. How do you think John Kerry is going to do in the upcoming elections?

I think they have poorly defined ultimate goals, because they are a poorly defined group. I doubt they can achieve most of their various ultimate goals; but they've made great progress on interim ones.This has been covered time and again, but Al Qaeda has a manifesto for a caliphate. It cannot be achieved.

The interim goals of expelling the US from the Middle East and destroying Israel also have no chance of succeeding. The short term goals of civil war in Iraq or getting the US out of Afghanistan are not working.

What you are referring to as "goals" are really nothing more than events. They try to blow up an airplane, we kill or capture the #3 guy in the organization. These are NOT goals! They are engagements dictated by tactics, developed from strategy, defined by the goals.

And you can't even apply the same standards of analysis to whether engagements are successful. There's ample evidence out there that AQ leaders are scared poopless of drones and technology. But no, you refuse to admit that -- instead you ignore that evidence and weakly contend that drones aren't actually killing the targets. On the other side of the double standard, a failed AQ bombing attempt is a huge victory in an "interim goal."

But even still, you doubt they can achieve their ultimate goals. How can they be winning if they can't win?

[Der Trihs]

But who cares? Does a non-secular Iraq help Al Qaeda? Yes, it does, because religious fanatics pretty much universally despise secularism. I'm sure they'd prefer to see Iraq a Christian or any other variety of religious theocracy, rather than a secular anything.

It's funny how you are so willing to paint Iraq as a hotbed of religious zealotry, but totally deny there's any kind of democratic trend there. They are a conquered and occupied country.

As soon as I posted that last message, I knew you were going to post a three year old article. You did not disappoint, in fact, you exceeded expectations by posting one nearly 4 years old. I note that you carefully avoid trying to show I'm wrong.

The interim goals of expelling the US from the Middle East and destroying Israel also have no chance of succeeding. They DID get us out of Saudi Arabia. As for Israel; whatever Al Qaeda does I expect Israel to be destroyed, sooner or later.

The short term goals of civil war in Iraq or getting the US out of Afghanistan are not working.We won't be in Afghanistan forever; and regardless of what they say I expect they are happy we are there and in Iraq. And the civil war to a large degree in Iraq came and went; although I expect it to flare up again when we leave and the collaborators are slaughtered.

And you can't even apply the same standards of analysis to whether engagements are successful. There's ample evidence out there that AQ leaders are scared poopless of drones and technology. But no, you refuse to admit that -- instead you ignore that evidence and weakly contend that drones aren't actually killing the targets. I have no reason to assume anything of the sort. And no, the statements of the US government or military don't count; they are known liars.

On the other side of the double standard, a failed AQ bombing attempt is a huge victory in an "interim goal."I didn't say "huge". And again; the point is terror, and making us hurt ourselves. It doesn't matter if the bomb goes off, or even if it actually existed. What matters is our reaction.

But even still, you doubt they can achieve their ultimate goals. How can they be winning if they can't win?Because they are hurting their enemies more than their enemies are hurting them.

[Paleface]

I believe the article linked to is nothing more than .... uninformed bit of isolationist tripe."Uninformed"?? Ha - ha.

Hey, now that the "War Party"* has directed its attention to the "good war", know what's going to happen?

It's an invitation for the Russians to provide weaponry to the opposition (Hmmm... who will it be? The Taliban? The Mujahideen? Al Qaeda?) that will enable them to adequately defend themselves and attack our personel and facilities. You know, just like we did when it was the Soviets fighting in Afghanistan.

And guess what the War Party and their "sheeple" will do? They'll be incensed and indignant, just like they did when they were ginning up outrage against Iran by selling the story that the Iranians were providing the Iraqis with weaponry to attack our troops.

How dare another country do what we do.

"isolationist tripe"?? You know, sometimes it is best to mind one's own business. Funny how those who want to go crusading use "isolationist" as a swear-word.

*As is now evident, the "War Party" and their Neo-conservative foot soldiers are not just limited to one particular political party.

[Ravenman]

It's an invitation for the Russians to provide weaponry to the opposition (Hmmm... who will it be? The Taliban? The Mujahideen? Al Qaeda?) that will enable them to adequately defend themselves and attack our personel and facilities. You know, just like we did when it was the Soviets fighting in Afghanistan.The US and NATO have been in Afghanistan for about eight years now, so let me know when the Russians are going to start doing that. I suppose it takes them a decade or so to get started arming these people.
You know, sometimes it is best to mind one's own business. Funny how those who want to go crusading use "isolationist" as a swear-word.If you agree that the article is isolationist, and I agree it is isolationist, then the word "isolationist" isn't an ad hominem, it is a perfectly valid description.

*As is now evident, the "War Party" and their Neo-conservative foot soldiers are not just limited to one particular political party.I am not a pacifist, but that doesn't make me a neo-conservative. Funny how those who want to blind themselves to the world outside our borders have to toss around insults like "war party" and "sheeple."

[mlees]

Theres no winning. Casting this as a war was a mistake. It should be considered as basically a criminal problem. Sure, well armed and nasty criminals, but nonetheless criminals. This is just the kind of thing that we should expect to happen for as long as there are dynamic disparaties in wealth and power between the first world and the third world.

I agree that poverty can lead folks to act out, but wasn't OBL from a rich family?

I don't think poverty is the only path to extremism.

[ElvisL1ves]

Serious question: do you believe AQ has a political agenda? What do you believe that agenda is, and do you think they can achieve it?
Originally, to get the infidel military out of the land of Mecca. Bin Laden has been clear about that all along. But the movement has become much larger and more diffuse, and now has about as defined an agenda as the teabaggers do.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Almost by definition, "the War on Terror" can not be won. Same reasoning why the War on Drugs can never be won.

Bush should have known that and the phrase should never have become popular but there you are. What's needed is clearly defined goals for whatever current and future actions the US undertakes abroad. The Iraq war clearly had very little to do with terrorism, though there could have been some kind of mission that would have the support of the UN (even if hesistantly) but US civil security was never part of that war until Iraq went to hell and AQ moved in, but even now the effect of AQ on the US per se is probably minimal.

If the Iraq war was founded on some achievable goal or if it had never been started, Afghanistan might in a much better situation right now, but I don't know. It could have.

"Homeland security" is a law enforcement matter, and can't be secured by military means. The best you can do for that, aside from policing is to try and reduce the kind of enemies you make as a country. This clashes with the US need to enforce freedom and democracy in other countries (if you're willing to believe that that's what the US is doing).

What I'm trying to say is that what the country needs (as far as I can see as an outside) is just clearly defined goals:

1. Foreign aggression against the US will not be tolerated. Military actions to counter that will be limited to removing capability to act on the agression and based on real intelligence.

2. Whatever lofty goals the US has to help the oppressed of the world. With an emphasis on doing so with the support of the UN and with the understanding that an invading military cannot build a democracy on its own.

1 is easily reachable as long as you don't mess with North Korea.
2 can get you in to a world of trouble if you don't plan and sell it well.

[mswas]

I agree that poverty can lead folks to act out, but wasn't OBL from a rich family?

I wasn't talking about individuals, but whole cultures.

I don't think poverty is the only path to extremism.

No one said it was. As I said I was talking about the disparities between the cultures, not individuals.

[E-Sabbath]

I disagree. The War on Terror can be won. All we have to do is stop being afraid. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

The criminals who want to scare us... are a completely separate issue. Deal with them like pirates. But there is no War on Piracy. They are simply enemies to all nations.

[XT]

Well, just to be precise, there was never a declared War On Piracy(tm), but there certainly was (and still is actually) a war against piracy, and a lot of treaties and naval maritime law tied up on the subject.

Actually, perhaps a better way would have been (or still is) to do something similar against terrorism as what was done against piracy. And just accept that you can't get em all...but when you do, you come down on them like the wrath of the gods.

-XT

[mswas]

I disagree. The War on Terror can be won. All we have to do is stop being afraid. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Well sure. We can win philosophically.

[gonzomax]

BenLaden is not Al Qeada . If he dies tomorrow it will still go on. He may already be dead. We have created enemies, lots of enemies. We claim to be at "war" against a tactic. Terrorism is not a place or a people. How do you know when you win? You don't ,this is just so stupid.

[gonzomax]

Mutallab was recruited in London. I suppose we are going to shoot some drones in the neighborhood, perhaps a bombing raid . I hope the people of London will understand.

[YoureBeingABinkyBoo]

Until we're intellectually honest with ourselves and admit that we are in a clash of cultures, "winning" isn't an outcome that is even available to us.

The truth that we refuse to see, is that our enemies have a single common denominator, and that is they are radical islamists. It's not a matter of rich or poor, educated or ignorant, politically disenfranchised or from a thriving democracy. A quick look at the majority of the major players shows us that they've hailed from a variety of different nations, many of which were democracies, and the majority of these people have ranged from educated middle-class to privileged.

The idea that we're at war with people who want nothing more than a means to support their families, educate their children, and live in peace free of interference from "Western Imperialists", simply is not true.

That said, the average "Taliban" on the battlefield is just a hillbilly who'll fight for the side that 1) pays, and 2) he thinks is going to win in the long term. He's seen many foreign armies come and go, and he's not going to throw in with NATO, have NATO lose interest and go home, then have to deal with the repercussions of having been a collaborator. He doesn't give two shits about democracy, whether or not his daughter learns how to read, or the global effects of poppy production. He just wants to beat his wife, fuck his goat, and smoke a little hash, in relative peace. He pisses off ISAF and he'll get punched around a little and spend a few weeks in detainment. He pisses off the Taliban, and he gets to star in a low budget decapitation video. The enemy is mostly a whole lot of farmers and goatfuckers who've chosen the side that they think is the lesser of two evils, surrounding a small core of bona-fide mujahideen. As with Iraq, we need to kill the core of true believers, and show all the goatfuckers that they picked the wrong team. We do that, they'll lay down their RPG-7's and go home. If winning means getting the fuck out of Afghanistan, that's how we win.

Some well planned assassinations in the ISI would help a lot too.

[E-Sabbath]

Well, just to be precise, there was never a declared War On Piracy(tm), but there certainly was (and still is actually) a war against piracy, and a lot of treaties and naval maritime law tied up on the subject.

Actually, perhaps a better way would have been (or still is) to do something similar against terrorism as what was done against piracy. And just accept that you can't get em all...but when you do, you come down on them like the wrath of the gods.

-XT

Exactly and completely my point.