Is it just me, or does it seem like we have lost our minds. I’m not a particularly big fan of violence, but I am even less of a fan of terrorism. So this war doesn’t bother me too much. BUT… ending in the winter? I hardly think that’s enough time to round up all the little osamas and store them in cardboard boxes. We’re going to be in this for a good while don’t you think? And I’m not saying that because bushy boy needs to earn his salt, I really just doubt we can finish something like this in a few months.
I think that you may have too broad of an idea here. What exactly does ending war mean? If you mean that by winter there will be no more bombs being dropped and the Antrax will stop circulating, then yes, I agree that is very feasible. However, if you describe the end of a war as every American soldier back at home and our status back to Defcon 1 or 2, I don’t see it happening for a great while. So, how do you define the end of a war?
Yes. Bush said it’s going to be a long war. It’s similar to the war on drugs, which Reagan started almost 20 years ago, right? There is no end in sight.
I’m not sure a war on drugs or terrorism can ever end or be won.
I think what the OP is refering to is news I heard today that the US gvt is hoping the Afghanistan Campaign will be done by mid-November.
Bear in mind, emorphien, that the Afghani campaign is more likely than not just 1 “battle” out of this “war” on terrorism.
A war on terrorism probably CAN NOT be finished, once and for all. However, a war against a nation that HELPS terrorists CAN be finished, and it’ll be just as over as WWII was on VJ Day.
That’s the point of knocking the Taliban’s collective dick in the dirt: not to keep us safe from every crank with a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and diesel (impossible), but to make dam’ sure nations or sub-national groups can’t use terror as a policy instrument.
That objective is worth the effort, and very attainable.