The War on Terrorism: Winnable?

[Antares]

Is the War on Terrorism something that can actually be won?

Less than 12 hours after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush proclaimed the start of a global war on terror. Ever since, there has been a vigorous debate about how to win it. Bush and his supporters stress the need to go on the offensive against terrorists, deploy U.S. military force, promote democracy in the Middle East, and give the commander in chief expansive wartime powers. His critics either challenge the very notion of a "war on terror" or focus on the need to fight it differently. Most leading Democrats accept the need to use force in some cases but argue that success will come through reestablishing the United States' moral authority and ideological appeal, conducting more and smarter diplomacy, and intensifying cooperation with key allies. They argue that Bush's approach to the war on terror has created more terrorists than it has eliminated -- and that it will continue to do so unless the United States radically changes course.
Almost entirely missing from this debate is a concept of what "victory" in the war on terror would actually look like. The traditional notion of winning a war is fairly clear: defeating an enemy on the battlefield and forcing it to accept political terms. But what does victory -- or defeat -- mean in a war on terror? Will this kind of war ever end? How long will it take? Would we see victory coming? Would we recognize it when it came?


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63009/philip-h-gordon/can-the-war-on-terror-be-won

[Sage]

You can't shoot an ideology.

[CaptainObvious]

You can't shoot an ideology.

...terrorism isn't an ideology.

One cannot win a war with "terrorism", since terrorism is merely a method of attempting to influence the behavior of states. In this case, "war on terror" really means "war on radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups". When we define it like that, the answer becomes more clear: such a war could be won, but not only on the battlefield. One must also effect social and political change to destroy the conditions that create terrorism.

[Sage]

In this case, "war on terror" really means "war on radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups".

My point exactly.

[Patchy]

As long as there is opposing views in countries, unstable governments, radical arms races and the impact of media on the public, terrorism will exist.

A lot of people think 9/11 was the first major terror attack due to the high media scale of it. It wasn't, Lockerbie was one of the first major attacks which was recently made well known due to the "Lockerbie Bomber" being released on from a Scottish prison (Blame Kenny Macaskill not the Scottish People). The media stirs terrorism up from the public's point of view and the terrorists point of view, making both sides anger at each other increase. Now I'm rambling.

The way to stop terrorism would for everyone to unite and think and feel the same way. But for as long as we all live there's always disagreements, always going to be a government that is powered by a terror cult.

We go into these countries to fight the war on terror and to make countries stable. However Stable to us is completley different to stable for the people of that country. Stable to them was what Iraq was like before we went in.

Just to point out my personal view, I support that the soldiers are trying there best to win a war they are forced to fight. However I don't support the government thats sending them to war. War on terror?

I see the war on terror as a excuse for us to get oil so we can keep oil cheaper than £1. Increase homeland security, we can see both the UK government and the USA homeland security screwed up with that most recent attack. Wouldn't that be a better war on terror?

[Norton]

You can subdue it. this is int a war where the enemy will give up and call quits. We cant really "win" like we did in WWII per-say, but we sure can lose. I am joining the Army to fight so we can at least achieve victory in the sense of what is achievable. you cant win without putting forth all measures necessary to achieve victory on the table. and pretty soon we may just realize that utter annihilation of our foes and their subordinates is the only way to win and we must be willing to do whatever is necessary to make that happen.

[CaptainObvious]

You can subdue it. this is int a war where the enemy will give up and call quits. We cant really "win" like we did in WWII per-say, but we sure can lose. I am joining the Army to fight so we can at least achieve victory in the sense of what is achievable. you cant win without putting forth all measures necessary to achieve victory on the table. and pretty soon we may just realize that utter annihilation of our foes and their subordinates is the only way to win and we must be willing to do whatever is necessary to make that happen.

The whole point a number of us are making is that "the enemy", with a few high profile exceptions like Osama bin Laden, is no longer some easily defined target organization or group with a specific ideological goal. So that first off makes it impossible to define and eradicate "the enemy".

More troubling is the fact that often some of the most effective options to attempt to eradicate said "enemy" are the very ones that most significant produce those enemies. US military intervention around the world has produced many - I can't say a majority with any proof, but I'd be willing to bet - of the terrorists it is now fighting. It's like the snake eating its own tail, completely worthless treading water at the expense of massive sums of money and many soldiers' lives.

A lot of people think 9/11 was the first major terror attack due to the high media scale of it.

I sort of doubt most people think that. Most important? Biggest? Yeah, but not first.

[Patchy]

I sort of doubt most people think that. Most important? Biggest? Yeah, but not first.

More younger people in my school. Since they don't study Lockerbie in Scotland and IMO is stupid since its the one place where children should know what happened.

So yeah I kinda worded that a bit badly, my apologies.

[sebbie]

Most people will have heard the saying: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' and to a certain extent this is true. When it comes to how we define a terrorist and terrorism. It is all to do with our own opinions/perceptions/values etc.

Take places like Ireland in the past. The IRA were seen by the UK as terrorists but by the RoI they were fighting for a just cause.

Also terrorism is often based on an idea, whatever that may be. We all know that you cant destroy an idea unless you got rid of everyone who thinks of it, who will think of it etc.

[chazzrox2]

Terrorism is an action turned to when people are trying to get a point acrosss right? well then the only way for "terror" to actually end is to please EVERYONE, thats just not possible though. if you kill terrorists you'll be called a murderer and some will try terrorism to attack you, if you don't kill terrorists then someone else will try to use terrorism so you will...

Tis a vicious circle which will never end. Granted problems can be overcome without resorting to violence but hey everyone know winning things means more votes!

[lalivre]

I don't think so. I mean I believe there will always be terrorists...like...bugs that keep coming back after you've cleaned up the sugary mess.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I don't think so. I mean I believe there will always be terrorists...like...bugs that keep coming back after you've cleaned up the sugary mess.

Sorry not seeing your analagy.

[Sgt. Pepper.]

The War on Terrorism has been a clusterfuck of epic proportions. In the 9 years we've been in this war, we've destroyed international opinion of America, created enemies abroad, and still haven't found the person who actually attacked this country. I don't think it's particularly winnable. We have no real clear-cut enemy, anyway. Who are we supposed to win against in this war?

[Giles]

Sorry not seeing your analagy.

I think she means that we (Non-terrorist groups) continue to try and push them out of everywhere they are, but they keep in coming back.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I think she means that we (Non-terrorist groups) continue to try and push them out of everywhere they are, but they keep in coming back.

Ah, well now that its elaborated upon. I still do not agree.

[Tiberius]

The War on Terror IS a winnable war. However, it won't be won by the means that we have been carrying it out for the past 8 years. It requires something drastic; something that many of the idiots in charge would consider "inhumane." You must hold the people of the area in which the terrorists come from responsible for the actions of their fellow country men. This means things like isolating cities from any outside contact/supplies, decimation of populations in accordance with the people we have lost. Some of you won't agree with me on these ideas, but it's fucking obvious that what we have been doing isn't working. The people in places like Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. are either afraid of the terrorists or celebrate them and therefore won't give them up to us even when in the presence of an army. If you hold them accountable for the actions of the terrorists, I think you'll be shocked at how quickly we get terrorist heads served to us on silver platters.

That's how you win this war. Like it or not.

[The Batman]

The War on Terror IS a winnable war. However, it won't be won by the means that we have been carrying it out for the past 8 years. It requires something drastic; something that many of the idiots in charge would consider "inhumane." You must hold the people of the area in which the terrorists come from responsible for the actions of their fellow country men. This means things like isolating cities from any outside contact/supplies, decimation of populations in accordance with the people we have lost. Some of you won't agree with me on these ideas, but it's fucking obvious that what we have been doing isn't working. The people in places like Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. are either afraid of the terrorists or celebrate them and therefore won't give them up to us even when in the presence of an army. If you hold them accountable for the actions of the terrorists, I think you'll be shocked at how quickly we get terrorist heads served to us on silver platters.

That's how you win this war. Like it or not.

I think by doing that we will be gaining more enemies and people will actually start backing them since it's inhumane and sick to do something like that.

It's not a winnable war there will be terrorist no matter what because they don't see themselves that way. In their mind they are doing what they think is going to help them and their country men advance or to stop the "evils" of whatever country they oppose. It's not terrorists we should fight it's the way they view us that we need to change.

[Rebecca L Vaughn]

You can't win because no matter where you are, someone is going to try and stop your country.

[josh93]

It depends in a way what allie is fighting the terroist and who is it and are the good side have the money and resorces to back it up it all comes in to play after a while.

[Mental]

I don't think it's "winnable" by the way it's currently. I'm under the impression that it's just another Vietnam situation.

USA, and some of it's allies including the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. has practically sent thousands of conventional troops to fight an unconventional force who aren't dressed in any particular military uniform nor use any mainstream military tactics or abide by any of the "rules" of warfare. They are mainly dressed like normal people, and have people of all ages on their side.

While there's an Army convoy heading across the way, an 8 year old boy will just come out and stop the truck and then blow himself along with them troops up along with him. Yet troops are meant to be there for the people, but it's a pretty hard task considering everything looks familiar, and you don't know who the enemy exactly is, nor do you know who the friend is. So it leads to soldiers having to kill civilians by mistake, and soldiers being killed by people they thought were civilians.

I personally think the 'War on Terror' should be fought solely by Special Operations troops that are trained in guerilla tactics and unconventional warfare. So send a whole bunch of US Navy SEALs, Green Berets, Delta Force, SAS, JTF2, etc. there, to do most of the work.

[CaptainObvious]

The War on Terror IS a winnable war. However, it won't be won by the means that we have been carrying it out for the past 8 years. It requires something drastic; something that many of the idiots in charge would consider "inhumane." You must hold the people of the area in which the terrorists come from responsible for the actions of their fellow country men. This means things like isolating cities from any outside contact/supplies, decimation of populations in accordance with the people we have lost. Some of you won't agree with me on these ideas, but it's fucking obvious that what we have been doing isn't working. The people in places like Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. are either afraid of the terrorists or celebrate them and therefore won't give them up to us even when in the presence of an army. If you hold them accountable for the actions of the terrorists, I think you'll be shocked at how quickly we get terrorist heads served to us on silver platters.

That's how you win this war. Like it or not.

Not only is that genocidal and criminal, it also wouldn't work. What, you kill everyone who happens to be from an area with terrorists? That just makes you the terrorists. Furthermore, such rampantly unjustified and illegal violence would itself ferment far more terrorism than it would solve; America would drown under a wave of violence incited by those harmed and destroyed by such a stupid approach.

And if it did work, you're willing to become a terrorist nation yourself to stop terror? Well, what a useful thing...