[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Or is this truly a War Without End?
[/QUOTE]
The administration’s *own * latest term for it is The Long War. Whaddaya think?
In all this discussion of the War on Terror, I completely forgot that Bush had once said that we could not win such a war.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090104Z.shtml
No wonder they call it a Long War. Maybe they should call it a holy war, or jihad.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
- Faced with unyielding American military might, The Terrorists surrender unconditionally, and sign an airtight document forswearing violence.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
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.
[/QUOTE]
If Pan-Arabism is achieved, or if there is an Islamic nation-state, then the scenario might work. However, this is all unlikely to happen because both Pan-Arabism and Islamic hegemony seem to conflict with each other, and there is also many other related conflicts which precludes either vision from being realized.
[QUOTE=constanze]
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.
[/QUOTE]
No one has won the war on drugs. But does that mean that we shouldn’t fight it? No one has won the war on crime either, but should your state governor say “Oh hell, we can’t win the war on crime so I’m firing all of the police?”
And your example of the war on communism is completely weak to say the least. You really don’t think we won that war? Can you point to the USSR on a map please?