It turns out that terrorism is a tactic, not an entity that can be fought as such:
He’s in the company of other military minds.
Remember Dr. Record of the US Army’s War College:
Bounding the War on Terror
Synopsis:
“The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted:
INDENT the administration’s postulation of the terrorist threat,
(2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and
(3) the war’s political, fiscal, and military sustainability.
He believes that the war on terrorism–as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda–lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power.”[/indent]
You mean he suggests that a state to state oriented military is of small value against a skulking and shadowy conspiracy? What prescience! Not to dim his acheivement, its always encouraging to see a sober Aussie speaking sensibly, but I recall one of our very own dopers positing precisely the same opinion long before this clusterfuck was rolling downhill into the Shitpit. Name escapes me, had something to do with clarifying… Claire? No, that wasn’t it, rather more masculine…
Is Luci all that much more masculine than Claire?
I hasten to point out that “Luci” is an appelation bestowed upon me without my consultation, one that I accept out of good natured tolerance and the fact that none of you smart-asses are close enough to sic the dog on.
Well, not to go deconstructionist here, but what does this mean?
a) Terrorism is an abstract, a technique and a response, not a person, state or even a belief system that could be suppressed/ eliminated; therefore, one can no more fight Terrorism than, I dunno, riots. That is, while it is possible to quell this one particular riot using crowd control, police, etc… it is not possible to stop Riots - all riots, all rioting, all rioutous behavior (current and future, too, I think, or at least working to prevent it).
b)There literally is no War on Terror (as a specific, defined movement) because there really isn’t one; the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the WoT, and the latter is simply an ideological facade to explain political/ economic decisions
I would hazard that Brig. Kelly is talking about a), but I thought of b) when I read it. Does the War on Terror actually exist? I’m really not trying to be flip here…if you say, World War Two, I know what you’re talking about, and think of the Axis and the Allies, the Pacific Theatre, Nazis, etc. But when you say War on Terror, I think of rhetoric: George W. Bush giving speeches, evil, al-Queda members hiding in caves somewhere. Maybe that’s an unfair comparison…but really, is there any evidence that we are fighting a (the?) War on Terror other than this administration saying we are?
Acknowledged (and I have made the same point in private conversations) but the significance of this is that someone involved in the so-called war (if only peripherally perhaps) said it publically.
Why is this even a debate?
There has been no declaration of war by the US.
There is no defined enemy.
There is no defined goal.
There is no defined arena.
“War On Terror” is nothing but a political catchphrase like “war on drugs” or “war on poverty” but for some reason people have literalized it in their imaginations. Even the Administration seems to have brainwashed itself with its own rhetoric.
Ah…I see. Good point.
Dog?
What dog?
The 99ers on the Board all know what happened to your dog, elucidator. It’s not the sort of thing that one forgets, no matter how hard you try. And it’s an ugly, ugly tale.
You’ve got a lot of nerve, mentioning dogs around hereabouts, buckaroo. 
Well, I’ll be! He’s right, I don’t have a dog! Guess that explains why he doesn’t come when I call. Honey! Honey! Did you know we don’t have a …well, I’ll be dipped in shit! Don’t have a wife either! Hey you! Yes, you! What are you doing in my fridge, get the hell out of…you are? Sunshine Free Rainbow Luci’? Well, could be, you sure are a homely sumbitch. You lazy, surly and useless? Well, all right then, that’s pretty much settled, I guess.
There are some definite drawbacks to a lifelong glaucoma prevention regimen.
(And what the heck is a “99er”?)
The Social Elite & Inner Circle of the SDMB Illuminati.
Nature Noblemen.
Og’s gift to a confused & harried Humanity.
That is, those of us who joined in 99, of course.
Praise be to them!
While it may be a good point, and one that both of us agree with, there still has not been a debate framed here.
What’s the debate, Askance? I don’t think you’ll find anyone around here who will agree that “war on terror” is an accurate description of what’s going on. Add it to the list of “war on drugs”, “war on poverty”, “war on you-name-it”, or for that matter, “energy crisis”.
“Politician Uses Inaccurate Phrasing” ain’t exactly “Man bites Dog”.
Well, yeah. But I’d contend that the wars on drugs and poverty had goals that were clear to all, even if the nomenclature was faulty, and those ‘wars’ were often being waged in ways that were wasteful at best and harmful at worst.
WoD: We wanted to reduce the incidence of illegal drug use in America.
WoP: We wanted to reduce the number of Americans living in poverty. Here’s how we did, FWIW.
WoT: Damned if we know.
I agree with you that there’s no real debate here; we all agree that the WoT is too badly defined to have meaning. It’s more a news item related to stuff we’ve debated - someone in a position of authority has finally pointed out the obvious. But it’s not a Pitting, so it doesn’t really belong in the Pit, so it might as well go here.
There’s a lot of stuff that doesn’t fit any forum’s description well, but that is still worth posting. My take is, unless I think there’s a slam-dunk case for why the OP should have been in a different forum, I shrug and go on.
Now if only we can get speeches made about the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs.
When did … aw, never mind.
Guy’s right, of course, and many of us knew it and tried to say so when it mattered.
And the war on abstract concepts wages on. I think it’s kind of silly to try to claim some proprietary relationship to thinking the war on terror is idiotic and futile. I could have told you that on September 11th, 2001 at around noon EST after I’d sorted my own feelings out a little bit.
Come on. We want to eliminate the use of terrorism as a tactic of political/religious action. Go ahead and tack on “Islamic” as the main focus, and that adds another level of complication, but no more so than “drugs”, as you yourself had to add the “illegal” part.
Well if everyone’s going to go all nicey-nicey on me, fine, there’s no debate. Maybe we can argue about whether there’s a debate here or not?