Wouldn’t work. All those acts would spawn more terrorists, and the worse we acted the more terrorists there would be. Your way would only end when pretty much everyone was dead.
I know this is a typo … but still … terrorism is alive and well.
What is your plan? Do you have one, or do you just know you don’t like this plan?
The world isn’t one of absolutes. It’s a world of alternatives. So what is the alternative to the current effort which is to win the hearts and minds while as narrowly as possible killing the people trying to kill Americans, westerners and moderate Muslims?
Do you just want to pull out and leave? Nuke the hell out of them?
We have two very different leaders, President Evil to most here, and President Inclusive, (awardee of the peace prize) who in some ways have chosen the same path of limited engagement.
What is your plan boffking. We don’t have the option of just being pissed.
If that truly is an important goal, how do you explain that the annual military budget is about $100 billion lower now as compared to when Obama took office?
There have been successful wars on terror in the past. The Anarchist movement assassinated the president of the US, the prime minister of Spain, the king of Portugal, and the king of Italy. They also bombed numerous places killed hundreds of people. They had a run of about thirty years and then went away.
Communist terror groups such as the Weather Underground, the Red Brigades, the Bader Meinhoff gangs, and the Shining Path committed alot of violence in the 1970s and then stopped.
Islamic terrorism can be defeated. It just requires the patience, pressure, and time. There needs to be pressure put on state actors like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. There needs to be military action against ISIS and the taliban. There needs to be coordinated intelligence to arrest people like the Orlando shooter before they can strike. The psychology of these lone wolf attacks is people trying to tie themselves to a bigger group to wage war on what they hate. If ISIS starts to lose the war in Syria then lone wolves will stop identifying with them because no one wants to kill or die for a losing group.
The military doesn’t fight terror. Three letter agencies do, as do contractors. Wanna look at the drone budget ? 
There is no Anarchist movement. There is only anarchists. Sort of by definition.
I agree with this 100%. This was the exact point I was trying to make when I posted about terrorism not being a big deal. Cracking down on drunk driving, and spending money on medical research instead of war, would save far more lives. It is true that lightning strikes cause more deaths and property damage worldwide than terrorism.
I would just pull out and leave. As I mentioned in the drone thread, civilian casualties are completely unacceptable IMO. We should not be causing anymore. How many Americans, westerners and moderate Muslims have died as a direct result of the War On Terror?
Instead of wasting trillions of dollars fighting a war that by definition, cannot be won, why don’t we spend that money improving our own country?
Several thousand troops who were killed overseas tells a different story.
Besides, you claimed that the war on terror was about “funneling money to friendly pockets.” So let’s clarify: by “friendly pockets,” you mean intelligence agencies and not defense contractors?
Just out of curiosity, if civilians are being killed in large numbers – whether it be Sudan, Syria, Rwanda, or some other place – as a general principle, do you believe that isn’t any business of the United States unless Americans are being killed too?
The first post basically hit it on the head…it depends on your definitions of things like ‘terrorist’ and ‘win’. Arguably, we ARE winning in that most of the large terrorist organizations have been hammered wrt their command and control, logistics and territorial gains. This hasn’t, of course, stopped terrorist attacks, and it never will. You will never stop all terrorist attacks. But you can continue to do what we’ve done…support regional allies, keep the terrorists on their back foot and looking over their shoulders for the next drone or air strike, take away territories they tried to annex, hammer their logistics both physically and in cyber-space, disrupt their command and control by taking out key leadership positions periodically.
You aren’t going to ever have a V-Day parade that the war is over and the terrorists completely defeated, so in that respect the ‘war on terror’ can’t be ‘won’…but I think terrorist itself can and is being mitigated, and as the terrorists continue to do desperate and horrible things they will lose ground in the places where they do those things with the common people. Every time they lash out at a population and kill innocent civilians for no other reason than they are soft targets the terrorists lose a bit more. They know it, too…that’s one of the reasons why ISIS started off trying to capture and govern actual territory and create their ideal fundamentalist Islamic state…and why they are back to the same old thing, now that this has proved impossible. Coming out into the light to do what they tried to do meant they got hammered for it, and pissing off more and more local groups meant that they have more and more fervent enemies who want to see their blood.
So, in conclusion, the ‘war on terror’ can’t be ‘won’ but either side…but it can be mitigated, and we are degrading it every day. Eventually, I expect, most of the major terrorist groups in the Middle East at least will be so degraded that they will go back to a couple of demonstration suicide attacks a year, regionally, and then hide the rest of the time.
Yes, members of the anarchist movement (and pace Kobal2, there sort of was such a thing, in the form of anarcho-syndicalism) committed these and various other terror attacks as so-called “propaganda of the deed” from around the 1880s to the 1910s. They mostly dropped the “propaganda of the deed” approach in the world-changing aftermath of WWI and the Russian Revolution.
So puddleglum, that’s your notion of a “successful war on terror”? Terrorist acts go on for decades and eventually spontaneously peter out in the wake of actual global battlefield wars and revolutions that kill tens of millions of people?
:dubious: By that logic, I recently concluded a successful war on menstrual cramps. Had 'em for thirty-odd years, and then hit menopause and they went away. All hail my victorious war strategy!
Such as how tens of millions of people have been killed after the IRA, PLO, and the FARC “spontaneously petered out?”
If you’re going to ridicule other people for not knowing history, such broad statements that appear ignorant of the history of other terrorist groups don’t really help your case.
Dafuq you talking about? My remarks had nothing to do with the history of other terrorist groups: I was just criticizing puddleglum’s unconvincing adducing of the Anarchist movement in particular as an instance of a “successful war on terror”.
I’ll also agree that it depends on how you define terrorism. If you mean destroying Al Qaeda and ISIS, it’s possible, but I don’t think the West has enough political will to do it. Basically it would require ground troops in all the various havens of these groups, meaning Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lybia, Afghanistan, etc. Once there we would have to focus for truly building up the infrastructure of those nations and improving the lives of the general population.
Imperialism of a sort would also have to be involved. By imperialism I mean that we would have to rebuild the governments of these countries in the same style that we rebuilt the German and Japanese governments after WWII. We didn’t just sit back and let a bunch of Nazis and Imperial Japanese rebuild the way they would have wanted to. We sent in people like Marshall and MacArthur to impose democratic values, backed up by the occupying troops.
We as a nation would also have to accept that such an endeavor would most likely mean a long a long term commitment of several decades, with thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars spent.
I know there was such a thing as propaganda of the deed, and a spatter of assassinations committed in the name of anarchy, but it wasn’t a movement. There wasn’t any organization, and there barely were leaders (although there were some - mostly in Spain, where itinerant rabble-rousers went village-to-village to stir up some shit - but then shit really needed stirred out there at the time if’n you askin’ me).
At best it was an idea in the wind of the times.
Yes, you’re attacking a very specific argument to the exclusion of the general point.
And my attack on that very specific argument was thoroughly justified. Carry on with your previously scheduled discussion of the general point.
Yes, terrorists acts getting less frequent and then stopping is the definition of success. The stopping was not spontaneous petering out, it came as a result of government crackdowns and as a failure of the terrorism to achieve revolutionary aims.