Now that Bush has committed us to a war that “will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious,” has anyone given any thought to just what victory will look like?
The way I see it, the total victory proposed by our President can follow only a limited number of scenarios:
Faced with unyielding American military might, The Terrorists surrender unconditionally, and sign an airtight document forswearing violence.
We kill or imprison every last Terrorist.
They stop threatening to attack us.
They stop attacking us.
The obvious problem with #1 is, the Terrorists are not a sovereign nation, and cannot surrender, at least not in the sense that the Japanese did at the end of WWII. Even if Osama himself signed the Instrument of Surrender, the nature of Al Qaeda and its associated groups provide no assurances that the terms will be respected. And judging by how long we have been looking for Bin Laden, we are hardly in a position to punish the Terrorists if they renege on the surrender.
#2 is doomed to failure simply because they can make more terrorists faster than we can kill them. And the faster we kill them, the more non-aligned Muslims are motivated to hate America and take up terrorism.
We could use #3 as a metric of victory, but why would they stop making threats? Like some virulent form of spam, it costs them nothing to issue videos from time to time, and ratchet up the “chatter” that seems to set the intelligence community a-buzzing. They can achieve their goals simply by keeping us off guard, and forcing us to respond to all threats as though they are real.
If we use #4, we have already won! Peace in our time! Until the next 9/11… So how long do we wait until we declare victory in the absence of a new attack?
Are there any other end game scenarios that could be construed as total victory over Terrorism?
Yes. It’s like war against crime or war against violence. There will always be crime, violence and terrorism, not at least since it is a question of definition. What is terrorism? Who is a terrorist? Geronimo? Colonel Chivington? Usama bin Laden? Fidel Castro? Every communist, taliban? Muslim? Only angry muslims? Only angry muslim with Kalashnikovs? Who hates America? What if they hate Russia? Or Saddam Hussein? Terrorist? Nelson Mandela? – What if gets free and is acknowledged? President? Bush? Blair? Saddam Hussein? Hooligans from Liverpool? Hell’s Angels? Nazists? – If they threaten people? When do we declare war on Austrian neo-nazis? Have we already? Was Göring a terrorist? Bomber Harris? Or only the crew on the bombers? or von Stauffenberg – terrorist or hero?, etc etc ad infinitum. The students of the White Rose? – Terrorists? How about Contras? Sandinista? CIA? FNL? Aryan Nations? Tamil Tigers? etc etc
What about a War on Crime that “will not be over until either we or the criminals emerge victorious”? It’s not just that Al Qaeda and its associates are not united: they are very far from being the only terrorists. Many terrorists are not even Muslim or from the Middle East!
Absolutely there can be no “end.” It’s not a real war, with clear objectives and a consistent, well-defined enemy; it is at best “war” as a metaphor.
What the WoT really is, I believe, is a vehicle for fear-mongering to preserve the present Republican hegemony. Some Republican leaders have stated on the record that their political goal is to secure a permenent Republican majority (in essence a de facto one-party state.)
Keeping the populace in fear of their own safety is a critical step in such a goal; in this case, meaning the retention of Republican control in the White House, Congress, and the Judiciary. An unwinnable but ever-present WoT is thus central to any strategy with that goal in mind.
Of course, the fact that the threat from terrorists is real is non-trivial. The “war,” such as it is, however is not real. Some argue that the present administration’s actions have done little more than create additional festering resentment against U.S. foreign policy, thereby enhancing the recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations. Republicans bent on preserving their hegemony show no concern for such a possibility.
You can’t win a war on terrorism, because it’s just a tactic. You could kill every last terrorist, magicially erase the very concept from people’s minds and the history books, and your “victory” would last just as long as it takes someone to reinvent it. Not long at all.
In the 80s, under Reagan and the Republicans, the US started the “War against Drugs”. Tell me, who won?
In the 50s, McCarthy and the US had War on Communism. While there were communist countries, there were also “communist sympathisers” (at least, according to McCarthys definition) in the US and other non-communist countries. So while the USSR is no longer communist, communism is still around - the war hasn’t been won.
The War against Terror is just the same idea in a new dressing.
It’s actually a war of ideas, although we’re not completely at that stage yet in the ‘game’ if you wanna call it that. The war on terror will only end when radical Islamism is completely discredited and thrown into the dustbin of history.
What about radical Christianity? Or radical athiesm (so i’m not playing favourites)? Terror is not the sole product of radical Islam.
Unless, of course, you mean that the current “War on Terror” won’t be stopped until that happens; in which case I agree. That’s certainly solely about Islamic-sourced terrorism.
A-ha, but the Prez has recently changed the name to a more defined term of ‘war against Islamic facism’ so it is against primarily Islamism and the ideology of the radicals.
Well, that’s certainly a lot more accurate. I wonder if it was that very objection which precipitated the change? (Not my objection, obviously, but that thought brought up by influencial people).
I didn’t see in the article, but are they planning to put crocidiles in the moat? Because that would be flippin’ sweet.
Oh, and in response to the OP: Keep an eye out for happy rainbows and singing in the streets. Possibly pegasi trailing banners of peace and love and happiness and um… everybody gets a cookie and $300 cash. Oh, and a big foam hand that says “We’re #1!”
Other signs that the war on terror has ended would include
The President makes a three word address from the Oval office: “Suck it, Terror!”
Free distribution of soma from vending machines. (“Who has time to be terrified, me so horny!”)
Uh… terrorists of the world unite and send card that says “We’re sorry”?
The “War On Terror” will be over when Bush and Blair are both out of office and more reasonable representative are running those countries.
This ‘war’ is a creation of Bush et al. There have always been terrorists and always will be. Governments around the world have been fighting terrorism for many years before Bush et al announced that they were creating a “War On Terror”. Once Bush et al are gone the war will be over, unless another idiot comes along and grabs the baton.