I mean is there any way of telling how well we are doing, what the prime objectives are. Who is measuring the effectivness of any particular strategy? If we win it one day, does that mean that there will be NO terrorist acts ANYWHERE in the planet or just US/UK allies? Is this scenario even remotely likely?
If there is no real answer to these questions, then isnt the whole thing a bit of a sham?
sin
No there isn’t.
Donald Rumsfeld.
They don’t know, and neither does anyone else.
Nope, not at all.
Yes, it is a bit of sham.
-Joe
But don’t worry, it’s all for your benefit.
**How would we know if we win the war on terror? **
No one would be afraid anymore. Obviously.
No, it’s a lot of a sham.
Terrorism will always be an option as long as there is a disenfranchised minority group that feels they are fighting a larger, indestructible foe (no one in al Qaeda truly believes they’re going to cause the destruction of the United States, and no one at ELF truly believes they’re going to topple the automotive industry, for examples).
With that in mind, terrorism will be “defeated” only when we eliminate all disenfranchised minority groups. Fat chance of that happening in our lifetimes, unfortunately.
Of course, the answer depends whether we’re talking internationally, U.S. only, or U.S./U.K. only. Here are some stats from the U.S. State Department:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19997.htm
Total U.S. Citizen deaths by International Attacks:
1997: 6
1998: 11
1999: 6
2000: 23
2001: 1440
2002: 26
Guess the war on terror reached its peak in 1999. Oops, that was before it started.
Total international casualties by region:
North America:
1997: 7
1998: 0
1999: 0
2000: 0
2001: 4091
2002: 0
(Read: 9/11 was an anomaly)
Western Europe:
1997: 17
1998: 405
1999: 16
2000: 4
2001: 20
2002: 6
(Can’t really see a pattern at all there)
Asia, Eurasia, and the Middle East all had staggering increases in total terrorism casualties in 2002:
Asia: 1281
Eurasia: 615
Middle East: 772
Can’t wait 'til they come out with the 2003 stats; bet it’s not gonna look much better. I give the War on Terrorism an “F” so far.
Of course it is. Before US gov. declared “War on Terror” it was what, at Peace with it? or ignorant of it’s existence? Why do governo’s always come up with all these inane campaign slogans?
Having said that, as far as campaign slogans go, this one is only a little cynical, almost innocuous. Compare it, for example, with “Clean Plates” campaign, organized by Lenin gov. in Russia in early 1920-s. The purpose was to save the labor spent by kitchen workers in people cafeterias on washing the dishes: customers were admonished to eat everything off their plates, making them easier to wash. Banners were hung, radio dishes were blaring… That at the time when people were dying of hunger on the streets and majority of the Russian population had to go for days without a single real meal.
The war on terrorism is just like the war on drugs it’s unwinnable and an excuse to pump more money into law enforcement and military while expanding the role of the federal government. The military is very much a corporate machine with various defense contractors receiving their share of the pork barrel. The only beneficiaries are corrupt politicians and rich corporate magnates on the top while the American taxpayer foots the bill. Fear and Paranoia is the new America, we’re entering a new era of the nanny state.
Yes. It was ignoring for lack of a better solution, hoping it’d stop, combined with a law-enforcement approach and occasional ad hoc military strikes.
This is exactly why they didn’t declare was on Al-Qaeda.
Nonetheless the truth of the matter is that we’re not so much at war with Terrorism as a phenomenon; but the left would shit their trousers if they said it was a war against Radical Islam, which is far closer to the truth.
Some possible metrics:
All are fairly long-term. We haven’t really started pushing #4 and haven’t touched #5 yet. When you hear Hamas is getting kicked out of Syria, that’ll be a win. When you hear of Saudi women driving cars, when the Theocrats in Iran fall, when you see Arafat and Sharon’s successors treating each other as heads of state, those will all be wins. Not all of those will be America’s doing per se, but those are all events that we wish to see happen, and they will indicate success.
I see that the war on terror started as soon as the first terrorist strike happened wherever it was… America wasn’t a part of it because it had never felt the effects like it did on 9/11.
Now that the full impact of terrorist actions can be felt by Americans, the administration is galvanized into action.
Whether or not the administration wanted the strike to happen , and to use it for advancing radical political agendas, is a matter of another debate entirely. It would not be the first time that certain human “sacrifices” have been made to further the interests of the country as a whole, or at least the interests of a very powerful few, and it has certainly obtained the most mileage per American death so far.
You can never know if the war on terror is over, that is what makes the scam so perfect. Ity never ends, and any funding of it is conveniently hidden under the umbrella of national security, whether it is genuine spending on domestic safety, or covert spending of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on the interests fo already rich corporations. No matter what the cause, the effect is that the government can now allocate funds and relegislate fundamental protections as it sees fit, and any dissent can be easily portrayed as treasonous or dishonorable.
The thing that gets me is that this scam is so old and oft used, but no-one seems to think it can happen in America. No matter, the money is already going , and there is less recourse or avenue of redress as the accountability of the administration vanishes daily. It profits the war profiteers even more if the more is self-sustaining. What better way to ensure a continous flow of profit than to engage in wars which are sure to create more anti-American sympathies??
P.T. Barnum would be proud. Look into the behaviour of big money during most recent “world” wars, and you will find that the biggest players profit most from playing both sides against the middle. A perfect case in point is the Bush dynasty.
They make way more moeny during a war than they do in peace time, and the same goes for Halliburton. A never ending war with unaccountable financing is the best thing that could happen to them.
we will win know we won when we get rid of people like this:
With the war on terror being open-ended, those people who are sitting in detention, with no access to a lawyer, until “we win the war on terror” are going to be there a looooooonnnngggg time. I’m glad I’m not one of them, so far.
I hope the time doesn’t come that I’m in an airport and it turns out my name sounds similar to someone who’s on a watchlist for being at an event that some suspected terrorists also attended.
Eastasia is the enemy, has always been the enemy. This is getting too close to 1984. One day the proles will rise up (yeah right).
I’d like an answer to this question: If we “win” the “war on terror” and have a big tickertape parade to celebrate our victory (as we always do when we win a war), will there be any security at the parade? If so, why?
When the Bush regime falls… that will be the first step toward “winning” terrorism. Though terrorism will always be present. One asshole with an ideology and some money is a brand new terrorist organization coming up by himself.
Fight the causes… not the effects is how you do it.
The War on Terrorism will be over right after the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs. The “enemy” is as diffuse in character and causes in any of those. But Bush will still be trying to position himself as a wartime President, and stifle any opposition, right up until the end.
Thanks for the figures Blo - they seem like a good way to measure the blunt end of terrorism. As you say tho, there wasnt a massive amount in the 5 years before 11/9/01, so has the “stability” of the world been adversly affected by the war on terror? I suppose we wont know untill the figures come out.
I must admit i wasnt expecting quite such a one sided responce from SDMB crew. Someone must think it’s worth figting for - Where are you !
If we are all agreed that its a sham, then what IS the answer? Talking to individual groups and find out they they are upset? Setting up a global customer service dept for international complaints and injustices to be corrected? Getting rid of world debt and poverty? Keeping western fingers out of oil soaked pies?
sin
Its easier to say what NOT to do... invading Iraq almost unilaterally (denmark is important too) wasn't the answer for sure.If you cannot measure the success or failure of the war on terrorism, how do you know that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake?
There are a number of measures you could apply. One significant one would be the number of states that support terrorist networks, or engage in state-sponsored acts of terrorism. Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Libya.
There are others - numbers who died in terrorist attacks, for instance - but it may be misleading to rely on these too heavily. Sometimes actions you take to improve a situation long-term make it worse short-term. The number of Americans killed by the Axis was much higher in 1942 than in 1941, for instance, but that doesn’t mean that WWII was a failure.
It is interesting, though, that the latest terrorist attack (if it indeed was al-Queda to blame) occurred in Spain rather than against the Great Satan, the US. Perhaps our security is working better than might be imagined.
Although the OP is correct that it is not straightforward to determine.
Regards,
Shodan
I know “Its easier to say what NOT to do” Rash, but we need ideas as well as good old fashoned critisism. Otherwise this just becomes a crapshoot ( ive always wanted to use that phrase !).
sin