Let us suppose that in 2009 president Gore surrenders to Al Queda. We officially lose the war on terror.
What does the world look like?: What is an “operational definition” for “losing”?
Presumably, an operational definition for “winning” would be the following:
Anywhere in the world, when an alienated group contemplates their range of options for advancing their interests, if a member of the group suggests, for instance, that a suicide bombing of the local bus station would be a good idea, the rest of th group shouts him down: “Are you mad?? The US will destroy us all within a week. Whatver we do, we better not use terror as a tactic.”
OK. How about losing?
Presumably it would not mean that Congress adopts Sharia Law for the US in order to prevent the victorious Al Q from randomly executing any American foolish enough to be found outside the borders. Or would it? Do you envision a situation in which President Gore receives an email from the Caliphate to the effect that a neutron bomb is secreted in Washington DC and will be detonated if any American women appear in public without a burka?
Would “losing” the war mean that we would be allowed no foreign policy? No foreign trade? No projection of power via military adventures, for fear of the punishment from victorious Terror?
How, and in what ways, would our freedom of action be limited after losing this war? What would change about our lives at home/abroad?
We’ve already lost the War on Terror. There was no way it could ever succeed.
This is an utter possibility. First of all, those willing to die in a suicide bombing wouldn’t worry that the US would try to destroy/kill the other members. They have a mission-- once it’s accomplished, nothing else matters.
Secondly, no one ever commits a crime with the expectation they will be caught. Everyone always thinks they’ll be the one to get away with it-- and when it comes to terrorism, they’re probably right. (Where’s Osama?) We may manage to kill some members of the group, but we’ll never kill the idea.
We may kill some of the members, but there’s always more. Every US bomb which goes astray has the potential for inciting angry young relatives. They don’t care about our reasoning-- they only know their little sister was torn in half by shrapnel. How many little brothers look up to Al Qaeda members?
We may eradicate major methods of funding, but we’ll never “starve them out.” They’re generally not as materialistic as Americans. All they need are the basics, and those can be readily obtained. (A village woman can bring them bread and tea, and other local sympathizers can supply the rest of their needs.) Terrorism really isn’t all that expensive.
Most of them don’t want to “take us over.” They want us to get the fuck out of their region and mind our own business when it comes to Mid East affairs. Despite the hype, they don’t necessarily “hate our freedom.” They fear that we’re trying to eradicate their culture and replace it with ours. (We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.) Most Muslim men probably don’t care that Western women are running around half-naked-- they just don’t want their wives and daughters doing the same thing.
Nonetheless, we fight this War and will continue fighting it, even though it’s futile. We cannot eradicate terrorism, and we will not change our economic policies. It’s nothing but a vicious cycle, but we could not simply throw up our hands.
MAJOR TYPO:
Meant to say
The war on terror IS OVER, to judge from the Irish example, is when home rule is in effect and all the foreign armies are back where they came from.
We won’t lose The War Against Terror because we’ll never stop fighting it. We’re too strong to lose, yet not strong enough to clean up every last bacterium of terrorism, so to speak. There is a very strong parallel to The War On Drugs. To lose is not an option. To win is not possible.
Some have suggested the drug menace would be eradicated by legalization. Too bad the parallel between TWAT and TWOD stops there.
i agree strongly with the previous poster. the war on terrorism might as well be synonomous with the war on drugs. both are wars “winnable”, not by conquest, but by policy.
if you think that we need to eradicate terrorism, invariably, you’re feeding more terrorists and making them more possible. it’s very possible that we’re bringing along the next ultra terrorist, when, if we had never started this war in the first place, he’d never have a cause to rally behind.
what i really don’t get is how the people that are utterly disgusted about the war don’t stand up and do something. if you feel like you’ve been lied to and feel that there’s sufficient proof, then say/do something. revolutions and wars have staretd in other countries for less.
for the record, i have NO problem at all if my particular political candidate would lose provided 100% of the populace would vote.
i’d like to konw what percentage of bush backers have changed their tune as this war has progressed.
conversely, any democrats pissed off with their party’s inability to act on their behalf?
i’m sure someone will ask, but yeah, i think you can legalize an end to the war on terrorism. it’d take some pretty drastic policy change, however, the insurgents/arabs/muslims (not to paint them all with a wide brush, pick whatever may be appropriate for the circumstances) would declare it a victory, and, invariably, the US would declare it a peaceful ceasefire or a tactical retreat.
it’s about cultures and values and how they (seemingly) don’t mesh well. if we can find out a way to coexist, we should do it. the sooner, the better.
The “War” on Terrorism can be “won” by keeping it at very low levels… aka avoiding political and religious agitation in the muslim world.
As for the OP… interesting question. I think the war is never lost because terrorism has limited objectives… and so also limited impact. You never finish terrorism. If I had to guess, then losing the “War” would be when terrorism becomes so rampant and muslim allies so weakened that a conservative US president has to soften a lot its Middle East policy or make concessions.
No, that’s akin to saying we lost WWII because we suffered military defeats at certain stages of the war.
Terrorism firstly, is a process of trying to effect change, so it’s not something tangible with which to wage war. So “war on terror” is a misnomer in the first place.
Of course I agree that it’s a misnomer - one no more declares “war” on a terrorist organisation than on a cartel of dodgy bookmakers. But given such silly nomenclature, then surely the measure of success is the overall effect the war has on its subject? For example, if the War on Drugs actually led to increased drug use, it would be a faliure. If a War on Poverty or Crime led to increased rates of poverty or crime, it would be a failure. Is it not reasonable to expect that a War on Terror, whatever it is, would not increase the incidence of terrorism? After all, since acceding to terrorist’s demands is a separate issue (which the US would not countenance anyway), might there very well be less terrorism worldwide without this so-called “War”?
Due to the fact that it’s basically a misnomer, any “realistic” definition of win/loss is hard to come by. Against Al-Qaeda for example we are actually doing quite well in that we’ve made their existence much more difficult.
But against “acts of terror” in general, more are around and especially because there are more targets for it like in Iraq.
But to say we’ve “lost” this “war” simply because under your definitions we are doing badly isn’t accurate. Again, doing badly in a war doesn’t mean you’ve lost it. The UK was doing badly against the Germans for a long time, they did not, however, in fact lose WWII.
I’ll agree with you that if we are fighting a war against “terrorism” the fact that terrorism has increased represents a type a defeat, but to say it represents a “loss” in the war isn’t accurate. In warfare you don’t lose the war until you’ve actually surrendered and quit fighting.
We’ve never “lost” the war on drugs either, we’ve just done badly.
The problem is, of course, you can’t really fight a war against a process in the first place, so all of this is just hairsplitting and the use of disingenuous and inaccurate terminology.
Note that they might well not have hadmuch of an existence in the first place beyond loose groups of operatives in some Afghan training camps.
Note that those figures I quoted specifically exclude Iraq, despite Bush calling it “the central front in the War on Terror”.
Acutally, I think that if British efforts were actually helping the German war effort instead of gradually diminishing Germany’s capability, it would be accurate to say that Britain was losing the war.
Since we both agree that that analogy is a poor one, would it be fair to say that the US is losing the War on Terror given the annual increase of terrorist attacks?
i agree with martin hyde on this one. you can’t say you’re losing something because more instances of it occur. granted, it’s not a very strong sign, but the result doesn’t necessarily follow from those parameters.
this, being a non-traditional war, needs non-traditional responses.
i’m not saying we should torture or do secret, clandestine things to undermine governments or such, but once again, it’s a war about policy.
is there anyone on this board that’s more…in touch with what a muslim terrorist would actually be thinking? i’ve figured that they’re pissed because we’re trying to make the world more like us. i think that’s a point worth debating and distilling to a better form so we can find out a good way to change that perception.
OK, following the OP, what can you say would be an objective measure of whether the US is winning or losing TWAT? Surely its prime objective is to make terror groups less likely to carry out an attack for fear of the reprisals? If TWAT made them more likely to carry out an attack for wahtever reason, what is the point of it?
This is such a ridiculous scenario that it is very difficult to debate the OP with any degree of seriousness.
The “War on Terror” (and the War on Drugs for that matter) is not a formal war like WWII, Vietnam or Iraq. It is simply rhetoric describing a number of changes to legislation, domestic security, foreign policy, and military, intelligence and law enforcement services that came about as a result of 9/11. It is a realization that the greatest threat to national security no longer comes from imperialist nations but small nationless groups of radicals who have the potential to inflict a lot of damage and destruction.
We can no more lose the “War on Terror” any more than we can win it. The best we can hope for is to figure out which combination of foreign policies, laws, security procedures, and proactive investigation and prosecution of terrorist groups will provide the maximium security without sacrificing our freedoms.
It’s like declaring a “War on Burglary”. You don’t expect there will ever be a time when there will never be a robbery. You take simple measures to secure your home while law enforcment does their job of prosecuting and detering when they can.