# What would it mean to LOSE the "war on terror" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2006, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587 "2006-02-01T23:05:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/21 "2006-02-03T15:13:13Z")
> [@msmith](#): > > It’s like declaring a “War on Burglary”. Would you accept that an enormous _increase_ in the burglary rate would constitue a failure of such a War? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/22 "2006-02-03T15:15:10Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > 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. Except that Bush argues it gives him the executive powers of Superman as CinC in time of war. He and his hordes of apologists don’t think it’s rhetoric. They think it makes him above the law and above the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/23 "2006-02-03T15:27:54Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Note that those figures I quoted specifically **exclude** Iraq, despite Bush calling it “the central front in the War on Terror”. I didn’t say “solely because of Iraq” no need to post something that just agrees with what I was saying. > [@](#): > > 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. You’d have to demonstrate we’re helping terrorists by killing them. Just because they’ve increased the frequency of their attacks doesn’t mean they are winning. The Germans killed more Americans in 1944 than in 1943, that doesn’t mean they were “winning” at that point. Trying to boil down the success or failure based on number of terrorism incidents isn’t an accurate way to analayze the matter. We could also compare number of successful U.S. operations against terrorist cells/forces/individuals in 2004 or 2005 versus in 2001 or 2002, more than likely those numbers have gone up as well. It’d be nice if we could easily or conveniently measure our success/failure in this “war on terror” but we can’t, and I’m suspicious of any attempt to engage in such simplistic analysis because it usually seems to be born out of a desire to either 1) demonstrate we’re winning/overstate our positives or 2) demonstrate we’re losing/overstate our negatives. > [@](#): > > 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? Only if we define the War on Terror on extremely strict and disingenuous grounds. We’ve been in this thing since 9/11 and even I still can’t think up a better or more accurate term than “war on terror.” ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/24 "2006-02-03T15:53:00Z")
> [@Martin](#): > > You’d have to demonstrate we’re helping terrorists by killing them. Well, I’d argue that we’re helping terror_ism_ by killing terrorist _suspects_ and any innocents who happen to be in the same general area at the time. > [@](#): > > The Germans killed more Americans in 1944 than in 1943, that doesn’t mean they were “winning” at that point. I thought we’d agreed that this was a very poor analogy? If you’re persisting with it, are you suggesting that there _will be_ a “1945” in which TWAT yields a _lower_ incidence of terrorism below 2001 levels in future years? > [@](#): > > It’d be nice if we could easily or conveniently measure our success/failure in this “war on terror” but we can’t Then why _engage_ in it if you can never even tell if it’s _productive_ or _counter_productive? > [@](#): > > We’ve been in this thing since 9/11 and even I still can’t think up a better or more accurate term than “war on terror.” I thought we agreed that it was a misnomer? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/25 "2006-02-03T16:55:29Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I thought we agreed that it was a misnomer? It is, but how else are we to describe it? “The greater global conflict against terrorist, militant, and extremist groups which are independently seeking to do harm against the United States and its allies”? I lament the fact that it’s a matter too complicate to easily label, as that means it is going to be a quandry for some time. As long as you try to apply terms like win/loss or winning/losing I’ll keep using references to other wars. This isn’t a win/loss type thing. The global “conflict” is more like law enforcement than an actual war. The difference being sometimes we are forced into war to successfully try and perform the law enforcement duties (talking about Afghanistan.) Police departments aren’t about “winning” against criminals, it’s about providing a certain degree of protective presence against criminals and in attempting to apprehend and remove criminals from society. Rising crime rates don’t mean the police department is “losing.” It means it is either 1) not dealing with crime as effectively as it could or 2) there are external factors that may be out of the PDs control that are contributing to out of control crime rates. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/26 "2006-02-03T17:05:27Z")
> [@Martin](#): > > It is, but how else are we to describe it? How about just “foreign policy”? And those few aspects of TWAT which impact upon airports and the like “domestic policy”? In fact, like pretty much every other industrialised democracy, the US could simply have a “counterterrorism policy” just like it has policies for anything else, and cut the melodramatic and laughably inaccurate hyperbole altogether. > [@](#): > > Rising crime rates don’t mean the police department is “losing.” It means it is either 1) not dealing with crime as effectively as it could or 2) there are external factors that may be out of the PDs control that are contributing to out of control crime rates. But do you accept that it is possible in principle that the War on Terror **itself** is what is increasing terrorism rates so dramatically? Again, the analogy here is the police not merely failing to decrease crime rates but _actively causing their increase_. Put simply, what is the _point_ of the War on Terror, whatever it is, if you can never tell whether it’s helping or harming? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/27 "2006-02-03T17:11:45Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But do you accept that it is possible in principle that the War on Terror **itself** is what is increasing terrorism rates so dramatically? Again, the analogy here is the police not merely failing to decrease crime rates but _actively causing their increase_. Yes, but I wouldn’t say that’s reason to stop trying to deal with the problem, rather it means we should deal with it another way. Law enforcement brings a great analogy with it. The Rodney King beating was an example of law enforcement causing way more good than harm over a short period of time, the riots that followed were devastating. > [@](#): > > Put simply, what is the _point_ of the War on Terror, whatever it is, if you can never tell whether it’s helping or harming? I think this is one of the questions that will be a problem for world leaders for the forseeable future. All I know is, after events like 9/11 there’s really no option for not taking some form of action. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/28 "2006-02-03T17:26:14Z")
> [@Martin](#): > > Yes, but I wouldn’t say that’s reason to stop trying to deal with the problem, rather it means we should deal with it another way. Of course: The “counter-terrorism policy” is synonymous with “dealing with the problem of terrorism”. I suggest that any policy which _increases_ the incidence of the problem it seeks to address is _failing_. > [@](#): > > All I know is, after events like 9/11 there’s really no option for not taking some form of action. And action has been taken: security at airports and on aeroplanes has been dramatically increased in the US, and this can reasonably be said to be a success of the counter-terrorism policy of the US. Stretching that policy a little, the Taleban training camps where the dead terrorists met have been moved south or disbanded: arguably another success (although I’m not sure they were any _more_ of a threat after the death of the hijackers). As for pretty much every other element of TWAT, it looks very much like the fallacy of “Something must be done. _This_ is something. Therefore _this_ must be done”. I honestly think there would be _less_ terrorism in the world if the US had simply embarked on a War Against Lacksadaisical Airline Security, while pursuing individual international criminals like any other country. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/29 "2006-02-03T17:33:57Z")
“War on Terror” is a stupid phrase, since the enemy we’re dealing with is Al Qaeda, not “terror” in general. Al Qeada’s goal, long term, is the establishment of a Radical Taliban-style Muslim theocracy from Morocco to Indonesia. That would be victory for them and defeat for us and for humanity in general, including the poor saps who’d have to live in this theocracy. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/30 "2006-02-03T17:37:06Z")
Oh, and their short term goals are the destruction of Israel, the removal of all western presence from the Middle East, and the establishment of AQ sympathetic governments in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/31 "2006-02-03T17:41:13Z")
Quite so, **Larry**. And what was the main reason why, say, Iran voted in a hardline populist idiot in place of a thinking moderate? Because he could point to the US and say “See? It will be us next”. The War on Terror allows political extremists in Islamic countries to play the External Threat card, electorally successfully. [Ironic, really](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=283398). ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/32 "2006-02-03T18:01:19Z")
The Iranian election was complex and I’m not competent to speak about it authoritatively. But I don’t think the results can be attributed simply to a fear of the US in the general populace. The real power in Iran resides with the Mullahs, who are not terribly popular with the people. Don’t get me wrong. I think the Bush administration is riddled with fools, and their anti-terror record is one of disasterous incompetence. But Al Qaeda is a problem any administration will have to confront. I recommend reading Richard Clarke on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/33 "2006-02-03T20:53:53Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Yes, but I wouldn’t say that’s reason to stop trying to deal with the problem, rather it means we should deal with it another way. > > Law enforcement brings a great analogy with it. The Rodney King beating was an example of law enforcement causing way more good than harm over a short period of time, the riots that followed were devastating. > . to extend your analogy, what sort of riot do you suppose would have resulted if, unable to catch up with Rodney’s car, the pigs used a shoulder launched missile which blew him up as welll as 25 bystanders. (the Philadelphia/M.O.V.E. option) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/34 "2006-02-03T20:56:58Z")
> [@Larry](#): > > I don’t think the results can be attributed simply to a fear of the US in the general populace. The real power in Iran resides with the Mullahs Of course, but this was the _Presidential_ election which _is_ based solely on popularity. This guy getting in was a genuine _surprise_ - the question must be asked **why** he succeeded. One look at his vastly anti-American campaign should convince you. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/35 "2006-02-03T20:58:05Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > “War on Terror” is a stupid phrase, since the enemy we’re dealing with is Al Qaeda, not “terror” in general. Al Qeada’s goal, long term, is the establishment of a Radical Taliban-style Muslim theocracy from Morocco to Indonesia. That would be victory for them and defeat for us and for humanity in general, including the poor saps who’d have to live in this theocracy. praise Jesue, at last a description that makes some sense. It THAT’s the worst case scenario, fuck, bring it on. Citizens of thje Caliphate:Sorry 'bout your luck. When you get fed up with the bullshit, as you soon will without the boogeyman of the Crusaders breathing down your neck, you will vote for drugs, sex and rock 'n roll like any sensible people. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/36 "2006-02-03T22:20:10Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Of course, but this was the _Presidential_ election which _is_ based solely on popularity. This guy getting in was a genuine _surprise_ - the question must be asked **why** he succeeded. One look at his vastly anti-American campaign should convince you. Like I said, I really don’t know that much about Iranian politics. I’m sure there is a fair amount of anti-American sentiment there. I mean where _isn’t_ there anti-American sentiment these days? However, from what I’ve read, there’s also a desire to modernize and secularize, and a strong dislike of the Mullahs on the part of the youth, at least. Of course a desire to be more modern and free isn’t contrary to a dislike of America. I’m not disagreeing with you. I really have no idea what to make of Iran. My Dad was there about 2 years ago for vacation. (The trip before that he went to Uzbekistan. My Dad has interesting ideas about vacations.) Maybe I’ll ask him. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/37 "2006-02-03T23:09:39Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Like I said, I really don’t know that much about Iranian politics. I’m sure there is a fair amount of anti-American sentiment there. I mean where _isn’t_ there anti-American sentiment these days? However, from what I’ve read, there’s also a desire to modernize and secularize, and a strong dislike of the Mullahs on the part of the youth, at least. Of course a desire to be more modern and free isn’t contrary to a dislike of America. > > I’m not disagreeing with you. I really have no idea what to make of Iran. My Dad was there about 2 years ago for vacation. (The trip before that he went to Uzbekistan. My Dad has interesting ideas about vacations.) Maybe I’ll ask him. It’s hard to conclude too much from the election results because theSupreme Council of Jurisprudents “vets” all the candidates, and they have nothing to leafn from Stalin about the effec tive use of a central committee to control the political process before it even begins. They are totally unshamed by knocking off a vast majority of the legislatyive candidates before the ballots go out. I think they did this in the prez election as well ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/38 "2006-02-03T23:11:07Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > to extend your analogy, what sort of riot do you suppose would have resulted if, unable to catch up with Rodney’s car, the pigs used a shoulder launched missile which blew him up as welll as 25 bystanders. > > (the Philadelphia/M.O.V.E. option) This is really just a non sequitur. (Also, I actually mistyped in my Rodney King analogy, should have been “doing more harm than good.” ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/39 "2006-02-03T23:14:42Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Of course: The “counter-terrorism policy” is synonymous with “dealing with the problem of terrorism”. I suggest that any policy which _increases_ the incidence of the problem it seeks to address is _failing_. > And action has been taken: security at airports and on aeroplanes has been dramatically increased in the US, and this can reasonably be said to be a success of the counter-terrorism policy of the US. Stretching that policy a little, the Taleban training camps where the dead terrorists met have been moved south or disbanded: arguably another success (although I’m not sure they were any _more_ of a threat after the death of the hijackers). > > As for pretty much every other element of TWAT, it looks very much like the fallacy of “Something must be done. _This_ is something. Therefore _this_ must be done”. > > I honestly think there would be _less_ terrorism in the world if the US had simply embarked on a War Against Lacksadaisical Airline Security, while pursuing individual international criminals like any other country. Prevention like that is only part of the problem. Do you suggest we just ignore terrorist training camps and international terrorist leaders? Eventually these guys are going to get a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. It’s “scaremongering” today, but anyone who really doesn’t think a terrorist group is ever going to get their hands on one of those weapons is fooling themselves. We need to proactively work to stop that from happening. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587/40 "2006-02-03T23:19:11Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > “War on Terror” is a stupid phrase, since the enemy we’re dealing with is Al Qaeda, not “terror” in general. Al Qeada’s goal, long term, is the establishment of a Radical Taliban-style Muslim theocracy from Morocco to Indonesia. That would be victory for them and defeat for us and for humanity in general, including the poor saps who’d have to live in this theocracy. Are they still “poor saps” if they _want_ to live in a theocracy? We all assume that the people in the Middle East want “freedom” as we define it, but I’ve got to wonder how many people in Afghanistan are living now almost exactly as they lived under the Taliban. Women may vote, but they still wear their burkas. The key to destroying fundamentalism (or at least marginalizing it to inefficacy) is wealth. Generally, the more wealthy and materialistic that people get, the less religiously fundamental they become. I’ve often flippantly remarked that the War on Terror will be won with blue jeans and MTV. This is exactly what the fundamentalists are fighting: the decadence of Western culture is not its freedom, but its materialism. They don’t want their young people lusting after iPods and paying $3.99 a month to get the latest ringtones. I’ve always been somewhat bemused by the prevelant notion that the people in the Middle East are secretly longing to cast off all of their inhibitions-- that women long to cast off their burkas and the authority of their fathers. A few months back, there was a thread in which the OP was outraged that some women’s groups were fighting for Muslim women to be allowed to wear their burkas-- in the OP’s mind, fighting to put them back in the clothing of repression. I guess it must have been utterly unthinkable to the OP that women woudl chose to dress like that when they had other options. We sometimes seem to see Middle Eastern women as millions of prisoners begging to be set free. Somehow they ignore the fact that most people believe what they were raised to believe. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-mean-to-lose-the-war-on-terror/342587.md?page=3)