So when will our war on terror be over? How many millions will we have to arrest/detain/kill? Is it possible there is no end game? If there is no end game, why bother?
For the same reason we constantly fight crime.
The “war” as such is almost over. Al Qaeda is probably finished as an terrorist organization with international reach. They have no state sponsors and are constantly under pressure. At this point, they are a regional threat, eventually they will be about as effective as Baader-Meinhof. Unless there is a secret state sponsor we don’t know about, the war part should be over within a few years at most.
The police and covert intelligence side of it will be ongoing for decades at least.
It’s just like with criminals. You can’t stop all of them, but you can reduce crime. You can also make sure criminals don’t organize effectively. Organized crime is no longer the threat it used to be because of FBI efforts to break the crime gangs. Likewise, although we can’t stop the occasional nut with explosives or an AK-47, we can prevent the kind of organized violence of an Al Qaeda. Single maniacs don’t kill 3000 people by flying planes into buildings. That takes planning, organization, and a decent amount of money.
Two weeks from Tuesday.
**
3/2/49.
**
Yes. More than just possible, IMO.
**
The same reason that we spend billions and billions on medical care: We want to stay alive. We will most likely never eliminate all harmful viruses, nor will we eliminate all terrorists. But if you get enough of the bastards, it reduces their chances of killing/harming you. Sure, it’s no guarantee, but tilting the odds in our favor is worth the cost, no?
Let me know when it even approaches 1 million.
When its political value drops significantly then the War on Terror will become secondary and might even stop. Otherwise it will be like the War on Drugs. Something which acheives little… but if left alone will cost you politically.
Since results in this kind of “wars”, sorry let me rephrase it Rummy style: Since the “metrics” of this kind of “wars” are hard to determine then you never know when your winning or losing. Take Israels example… they have been killing palestinian terrorists for ages and to no avail.
No avail? Sure, if the goal was to end terrorism entirely. But Israel has reduced terrorism sharply through offensive action. Before they reoccupied the West Bank, there were suicide bombings almost every week. When was the last time you heard about a suicide bombing in Israel? Once a month, two months?
Well if you think a month or two respite is worth a decade or two of heavy handed security ?
It’s more than worth it to the Israelis.
If the Palestinians would stop the bombings, they might find themselves in a much better situation as well.
If the Israelis would stop the missiles, they might find themselves in a much better situation as well.
Oh, come on. Without getting into the whole they took my toys before we invaded their sandbox nonsense, are you seriously suggesting that the missile attacks are the primary reason that hamas is using homocide bombers? If the missile attacks stoped today do you really think the homocide bombings would go down? Any statements from Hamas or other terrorist organizations to back that up? Any proof other than their word of honor?
The “war on terror” will never end. It’s too useful as an excuse to justify whatever abuses and excesses the Powers That Be want to impose.
If it’s all the same to you, I’d just as soon as not see the War on Terror modelled on the decades old “Mid-East Crisis.”
They’ve been monkeying around over there for a generation or two, (depending on how you want to count it), w/o a succesfull conclusion. At best, there’ve been cycles of respite.
I don’t think that a perpetual state of low grade war is helpful or healthy for a representative form of government. Also, I think it’s just a little too Orwellian-creepy.
I guess that Mr. Ridge hasn’t gotten the same memos that you get.
Maybe you should forward some to him about Qaeda’s lack of international reach etc.
He seems awfully concerned.
Excerpt from: <http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36248>
(Comments on “The Return of The King”)
"Still, these are minor points. Peter Jackson has made a film for all time, but also one that is uniquely apropos today. As John hys-Davis, the actor who played Gimli, has said: “I think that Tolkien says that some generations will be challenged. And if they do not rise to meet that challenge, they will lose their civilization.”
Not until the hordes of terrorists and their supporters are decimated!
Appeasement does not work, it only leads to further demands and outrageous behavior is not satisfied.
“Beware of the Cog”
We have the wisdom of spingears based on the words of John hys-Davis, the actor who played Gimli’s interpretation of JRR Tolkien works about Middle Earth. What could possibly top off that combo but citing the WND?
And there’s a plan for decreasing the appeal of the terrorists message too, right. It’d be unfortunate if we had to be constantly decimating folks all over the place.
How many does it take to make a horde?
If only we could find the people who are advocating appeasement and explain this to them. Where do you suppose the appeasement advocates are? I haven’t run into any yet, but I’ll be sure to tell them.
**If the Israelis would stop the missiles, they might find themselves in a much better situation as well.
**
The missiles are a new development, the terrorism came long before. As I’ve pointed out, Israel is better off than they were in 1999, in terms of frequency of successful attacks.
**I guess that Mr. Ridge hasn’t gotten the same memos that you get.
Maybe you should forward some to him about Qaeda’s lack of international reach etc.
He seems awfully concerned.
**
Mr. Ridge is paid to worry about this stuff.
**And there’s a plan for decreasing the appeal of the terrorists message too, right. It’d be unfortunate if we had to be constantly decimating folks all over the place.
**
It’s called open societies. Something which we are working to implement.
If only we could find the people who are advocating appeasement and explain this to them. Where do you suppose the appeasement advocates are? I haven’t run into any yet, but I’ll be sure to tell them.
Even if you don’t want to appease the terrorists themselves, paying more attention to their cause and helping to advance it is a form of appeasement, however unintentional.
Appeasement is dangerous for sure... covering your eyes and ears and thinking violence only will solve it is more dangerous.... by rising to the challenge I think they meant people who oppose the extreme ways of solving it.Well, I think just one john with payment makes it past tense alright. (a silly and stupid comment, sure, but no more than Rashik’s assertion that Israel’s attempts at security are the prime cause of terrorism)
adaher,
Agreed that open societies are part of the solution. Also part of the solution is having a populus educated in secular subjects and having something constructive for citizens to do with that education. The end game question is how to get there.
The West is fearful of rapid democratization because of the risk of replacing a freindly despot with an unfreindly but popularly elected theocrat. The percieved imposition of our Western secular values is also the very thing that religious extremists react against. The end game can’t be played until mainstream Islamists seize control of religious structures back and recognize that an open tolerant society is compatable with religious faith and in their society’s best interests (just like it had been at points of the peak of Islamic empire). That is unlikely to happen until the populus has open access to the rest of the world which won’t happen until mainstream Islamists … You see the problem. Lots of factors make an endgame unlikely without going through some difficult periods first.
So how about some practical ideas?
Kill all the hordes of terrorists and their supporters? And you’d tell them from everyone else by the nice sign they wear? Or is every Arab a supporter to you? And you do realize that excessively heavy-handed tactics make the terrorist structure into a hydra sprouting two new heads for every one you cut off?
Appeasement? Which means isolating the Arab world from all of the West and its so callled secular value system. Not an option. We need each other. Now on the other hand decreasing how much the West needs the Arab world by decreasing our reliance on the oil, so that we could live through an unfreindly period if theocrats do get elected into office, that is good planning. How to do that is a different debate.
“The cause” for the terroists is the battle of theocracy against percieved Western secular values which respect religion as an equal but do not subserve it. The other players include oppressive regeimes which try to use religion as means to justify their totalitarian methods to both sides (lack of freedoms to prevent the masses from straying from orthodoxy; lack of freedoms to prevent religious fundamentalist from gaining control and to fight terror; depending on who you are talking to)
So do not appease but still address the cause. Fighting terror with weapons and fences and intelligence is a needed bandage to stem the bleeding, but we are foolish if we believe that such is the real battleground. We haven’t won until the Arab world finds a way to integrate devotion to faith with secular governmental structures and secular studies for their people with home grown science and technology industries for that educated populus.
Just MHO.
A terrorist organisation will go on a long as it has popular support. All the terrorist organisations that have been neutralised didnt have popular support. Look at IRA (appeasement and eventual Catholic Majority in N Ireland), Baader Meinhof and November 17 (lack of popular support).
With all due respect adaher, there were only minor opposition in the West Bank and Gaza prior to the mid 70ties, at which time Israel began to treat the occupied population poorly, as well as moving significant amounts of settlers into the area. In the first years of the occupation Israel treated the Palestinians decently and there where little resistance. Furthermore, I would hardly call the first intifada (10-12 year olds throwing stones at tanks) for “terrorists”. Islamic Jihad wasn’t founded until the mid 1980ies, and if I’m not completely mistaken Hamas was founded in 1988 or so. Suicide bombings didn’t occur until mid 1990ies. There were things happening in that area before 1999 you know.
Why don’t you try to live in an area where an occupying force removes your water supply, your crops, denies you the opportunity of visiting your family in the neighbouring village, or to go to work, has civilians armed with sniper rifles shooting at you when your out on your farm, - then tear down your house when you to try to object or just to build a settlers-only road. That was what was happening before people began to blow themselves up. And still is going on. It doesn’t justify blowing people up, of course.
As to the war on terror, it will probably never end in our lifetime because the principle of fundamentalists is to never give in, as we all know they regard their own life of lesser value than their cause. The big difference between Baader-Meinhof and their likes and al Qaeda symphatizers, is that the former were driven by a political idology, the latter are driven by strong personal religious beliefs. Unlike in the days of Baader-Meinhof there are millions of them to recruit from and until we give them the incentive to blame their own leaders, and stop supporting dictatorial leaders who suppresses them, they will continue to come at us, IMO.