War On Terror: Winning vs Losing

Great Debates
1

How and when will we know if the War on Terror has been won or lost?

When do we decide that the time to make the win/loss assessment has arrived?
Ten months? Ten years? Ten decades? Longer?
Is there some hallmark of the right time to make thw judgement?

What will it look like when we win?
Pacification of the Third World? Are we talking about the pacification of Mankind? What will it look like?

What will it loook like when we lose?
Will there be daily terror attacks in the US? Will US policy be at the whim of whatever terrorist groups are the most vicious in their attacks? Will US foreign policy fall completely in line w/ terrorists demands? How will be able to judge if we’ve lost the war on terrorism?

2

Great thread. It’s possibly a bit abstract for those folks who like to view the world in simply black and white issues but I, for one really like this thread.

Personally, I don’t like the words War on Terror - it’s kinda cheesey and and tends to compartmentalise the wrong aspects of the goals. I’d prefer to see the words War on Inequality - and here’s why…

I have a belief that nothing on this planet breeds bitterness and acrimony like having a real sharp, and tangible divide between the haves and the have nots. And nothing on the planet breeds terrorist philosophies like having a fertile ground full of bitterness and acrimony.

History is full of these examples. Just look at how Hitler in November 1923, for example, hijacked the general bitterness the average citizen of Germany had towards France after France shipped 100,000 soldiers into the Ruhr to enforce reparations payments. Yes, it’s true that the incredible inflation of the Deutsche Mark at the time aided his cause, and yes it’s true that Hitler had some evil ghosts within him which went way beyond merely getting Germany back on her feet, but it was the bitterness which allowed him to get his foot in the door during the infamous “Beer Hall Putsche”.

I know, I know… every situation is different. Every historical perspective is different too. Different stimulii, different persecutions in the past, different cultural stimulii in the present. Consistently, however, the single most outstanding thing in common is the bitterness which results about the net result - namely, “them bastards over there are living it up at OUR expense”.

It’s a sad reality that we’ll always have our Pol Pots however. These evil bastards are idealogical demagogues who go way beyond just your normal terrorist publicity attack. These evil bastards get into a position of power where they can implement instituional policies of genocide - but thankfully, to do such a thing they have to assume a certain nation state level - which is actually easier to combat militarily.

But in regards to your terrorist publicity attack - that’s a different beast. It’s an amorphous thing. Often, it’s a trans border kinda thing too.

I would contend nonetheless that it’s the bitterness inrelation to blatant injustice and inequality which creates the fertile ground for terrorist movements to prosper.

As it stands, the gap between the Western World and the Third World is wider than ever before. Some 1 billion people apparently live on less than 1 dollar per day. We’re setting ourselves up for ever more bitterness while so ever, we here in the West, aloow that divide to become even greater.

3

IMHO, these are some of the most crucial questions the American electorate could ask about the War on Terror.

You mention that reducing the levels of disparity in terms of economic factors could go a ways toward eliminating the pool of potential recruits for terrorist organizations. (At least I think that you did.)
What would you use for your benchmark to identify the goals of the War on Terror? What would you think would be the acceptable stopping point, (if any)?

How do you feel about the apparent disparities of personal and political freedoms? Do you think that these play signifiagnt roles?
I suspect that eliminating the pool of potential recruits is one good way to frame the problem.
Another thing that I think might help would be if there was a manner of recourse that was seen as both fair and effective for settling disputes that provide rallying cries for terrorist groups.

4

To state the issue in terms of ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ is to accept the terms as stated by one of the protagonists, in this case Bush the Believer.

I can’t accept those terms.

Assuming we’re talking about the same kind of “terrorism”, history tells us you can’t beat it. Thus there’s no point in engaging it in those terms at all. Why can’t you beat it ? Because even if you kill the ‘terrorists’, the – usually social - reasons why they did what they did remain and others, sharing the same grievances, will replace them; Ireland, Palestine . . . the only solutions are political, not military.

Instead, what you do is attack the reasons for the (partisan-ly termed) ‘terrorism’, usually perceived injustices within the wider society that bore the driven-to-action ‘extremist’ ‘terrorists’.

Which is what Bush the Believer has done; US is leaving Saudi, working as hard as it can to create a Palestinian State and doling out cash to every developing world region in quick time – hell, Bush in Africa, who’d have believed that prior to 9/11 ?

In other words, address all of OBL’s shopping list while pretending to be tough and telling the US public the opposite.

You don’t beat terrorism, you either live with it or address the causes.

5

Mm-hm.

Wonder how long it will be, after the creation of a Palestinian state, before Israel invades it?

6

I wonder how long it will be after the creation of a Palestinian state before the Palestinians return to mass murder as a hobby. Oh, yeah, they never stopped.

7

I’m going with never becuase if they do the US better damn well smack em down.

Mass murder? cite please. Suicide bombings do not constitute mass murders show me an instince in which Palestinians murder say over 750 people at one time.