Is there a definition of "victory" in the "War on Terror"? If so, what? If not, when can we ever say "done"?

Question

Messrs. Bush, Cheney, et al. insist that the nation must remain on a "war footing" - including, by the way, not criticizing the government's efforts - until "victory is acheived."

But what would that "victory" be, exactly and specifically?

No one seems to be able to define what "victory" would be.

To answer this question, a definition would have to be specific, observable, measurable - and achievable.

After all, it's in the nature of terrorism that you don't know who exactly all the terrorists are, so it's absurd to say something like "when we've killed all the terrorists" - there's no way to know that.

And they are quite willing to wait for years,.so you can't say something like "When we've gone x number of years without an attack."

But if we can never define victory, if we can never say "Okay, that's done." then is "war" the right term to be using?

Answer 1

we've stirred up a right hornets nest. I don't we can ever be at the stage where there will be victory

looking to "1984" by George Orwell, war was ongoing ("war is peace" - remember that?) and used to keep the citizens of Oceania loyal to The Party. If you're scared of your enemy and see your government "protecting" you, you're going to be loyal. Look at dubyas ratings immediately after 9/11 - they went up up up up and up. The US had to pull together, be unified and stay loyal to the president - or so they thought. The plummeting ratings now are a credit to Americans who aren't falling for this anymore.

You're not going for the real war - which is the propoganda war!

Answer 2

It's kind of like The War on Drugs. I don't hear much talk about that these days. I guess it's not a matter of winning or losing, but a matter of being popular. The Drug War is not popular, so we don't talk about it anymore. It doesn't mean that it was ever won or lost. We just traded our red ribbons for American flags that say something like "We will never forget."

Since 9/11 it makes Bush really popular to be beating up on supposed terrorists. So, I would say he's winning some kind of political victory. I guess he might invade Pakistan in time before the next election to actually find Osama and "win." But some say there's no money in Pakistan, so it's not worth the effort.

To Americans I think getting Osama would be the ultimate victory. If that's not possible, we will claim we won by saying things like we have prevented terrorist attacks on our own soil for the past 5 years.

Imagine the terrorists' perspective, however. What would they gain from another attack now? We are already terrified and on some kind of "terrorist mania," even 5 years after the major event. In some ways, the continued focus on terrorism is making them the real winners. Until that ends, they will be winning, in my opinion.

Answer 3

Great question, and some great answers too.

All I have to add is that there is a good article on this in the current issue of Atlantic Monthly. James Fallows makes a good case that 1) We've pretty much hobbled Al Qaeda 2) Claiming we are at war gives the terrorists more credit than they're due 3) Our spending has gotten way out of hand 4) It encourages a state of fear

Fallows' main point is that, since the war on terrorism is expensive and we've hurt them bad, we should just declare victory to avoid giving them more renown and 'glory'.

Answer 4

The victory will come but will take many years. Terrorism will decline as inclusive governments are born and the human rights of all sectors of their population are included as paramount. Terrorism has it's causes and probably a major one is poverty, followed by disenfranchment of those not belonging to the group that controls government. Those left out in the cold are easy pickings for those wishing to recruit and use to further their own agenda. This is why countries in the Middle East (including Syria and Iran) are happy to fund these groups. They have no wish to be bordered by a democratic country whose people have hope and aspirations. As was seen in the USSR people power can spread like a disease by people who come to realise that life can get better. As lives improve there are less people willing to aid and give sanctuary to those who wish to destroy for personal or sectarian gain. Much was done badly in Iraq in that, there was no master plan to rebuild the infrastructure quickly. The Allies were welcomed initially because people thought their lives would improve, it didn't happen and, in many cases they have found themselves worse off. One thing the US could do now is cancel the contracts of all major US contractors. Put the responsibility and the billions of dollars at the disposal of an Iraqi Development Commision, who will, where possible, employ Iraqis. This will not only give the people employment, it will also give them hope. Surely better the billions stay in Iraq than go to already wealthy shareholders in the US. We should be thinking about peace and how that can benefit the people.

Answer 5

no definition and the war will never be over. Simply put it is being used as an excuse to put fear into the people and allow government to basically proceed unchecked and as it sees fit; to run roughshod over the rights of those it is sworn to protect.

Remind you of any previous government? Richard Nixon anyone? Not surprising given the pedigree of Bush's two closest (Cheney and Rummy)

Answer 6

Gee. That's a really good question. Usually, when you do something, you have a pretty good idea of what you want to achieve. When you brush your teeth, you want your teeth to be clean. What if Mr. Bush had an idea of what he wanted to achieve, but he just can't say it outloud? Either we did have a plan but he can't tell us, because his plan involves oil, or we didn't have a plan, and thus Bush and his followers are a bunch of nincompoops.
It's like we didn't know what we were going to do, but we had to do something, or something like that. We didn't really visualize a succesful war before we went and fought it, we just went in like idiots.

What would the war in Iraq have looked like if we had succeded?

Answer 7

this is the first question you post that makes sense

Answer 8

its gonna be a long long war ,i say

Answer 9

no