Starting from 9-11 to today, which would be more competent at defeating Islamic Terrorism?
2006-06-28 10:11:07 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Neither. Someone needs to address the underlying causes, not just attack the symptoms and irritate them further.
2006-06-28 10:14:11 · answer #1 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Great question, but unfortunately its apples and oranges. Here's the problem.
All political institutions subscribe to the age old adage "war is politics by other means". As Karl von Clauswitz argues, when diplomacy breaks down, war begins. Conventional warfare has predefined outcomes and objectives that make it possible to recognize victory. For example: destroy the military, topple the political regime, interrupt communication systems, etc. These are very concrete objectives that will topple a government, because a government relies on this infrastructure to stay in power.
The war on terror is not about politics or infrastructure. It is a theological/ideological war. The US has declared war on a belief system that it does not agree with and vice versa. Islamic Terrorism is not about political gains, it is about exercising ideological principles. It is impossible to win a war that is based on a thought. There are no clear objectives, no predefined outcomes and no way to declare victory. The only way the US wins this war is if Islamic Terrorists convert to a different religion.
In my opinion, the best people to handle the war on terror is probably those in the religious community. So my answer is neither can handle the situation better than the other. They are both to heavily entrenched in tradional warfare and politics.
2006-06-28 10:49:06 · answer #2 · answered by erictompkins1970 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Colin Powell proved in his miltary career that he is a deep thinking tactician and I think he would make a fine president and commander in chief.
I dont think however that there is anyone alive who can grasp the enormity of defeating a brand of terrorism that is a single minded and dogmatic as this one.
With every terrorist movement throughout history the terrorists have had a demand or set of demands which you could if you wanted to negotiate over. This lot are different however as they don't have any demands or bargaining points, They simply reject our way of life and our right to be what we are.
Their aim is Ummah and quite simply that is something which we just cannot give so their is no middle way.
We have no choice but to fight, and they probably feel the same.
2006-07-01 00:19:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Colin Powell by far is the better canidate. Georrge Bush is the political monkey. He is by far the worst president in US history. He is unintelligent, and is ruining the country with prices on the the war in Iraq. What about the elderly people who worked in this country for decades and do not have medicare. I think he is an absolute disgrace to the country, take care of the problems at home
2006-06-28 10:45:04 · answer #4 · answered by kitkat 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That choice does not exist in our reality. While Colin Powell might run for President, Bush 43 cannot do so again.
2006-06-28 10:24:38 · answer #5 · answered by rayhanks2260 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Colin Powell would be, by far, the better person. GW Shrub spends too much time listening to his personal demons, his gang of Neo-con advisors and is still stuck in the "The shot at my Daddy" mode. W(TF) has no experience in a guerrilla type conflict,
Powell served two tours in SE Asia and understands insurgency. He has also got the confidence of the nations Generals and he would listen to their advice and choose the best course of action. Bush-league listens to their advice, then listens to his cronies and choose by consensus approvaland how he thinks it will play to his base of right-wingnuts (some of which have worked loose).
2006-06-28 10:36:08 · answer #6 · answered by Fuggetaboutit_1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One respondent stated McCain is "a options proper". this isn't desirable, genuinely he's a centrist even as Obama is the most liberal US Senator and helps many radical factors of view. back to the question about Powell. will be many motives. Why do 4 former Secretaries of State help McCain? because he's a options extra "plugged in" with recognize to international themes than Obama who has no journey contained in the section?
2016-11-29 22:24:09 · answer #7 · answered by baltrip 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Colin Powell would be better than GW Bush. Just about anyone would be better at it.
2006-06-28 10:17:02 · answer #8 · answered by Chilly1 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush has handled it. How can you argue with success?
Powell is a political monkey, the " First Black Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff".
2006-06-28 10:27:53 · answer #9 · answered by tex 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
General Powell. He was a General.
2006-06-28 12:28:52 · answer #10 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋