Is it possible to ever win a war on terror?

Question

I mean, really, could we not just as easily declare a war on rudeness?
How did the other wars against unnamed foes end? The war on poverty? The war on Drugs? Every country has potential terrorists living within. Does a war on terror give us a right to run roughshod over the world cramming democracy down the throats of those who don't know what is good for them?

The alternative would be a war on a defined foe, such as a country or person (Osama bin Laden).

Answer 1

This little piece of clumsy marketing died off quickly, but it gave away what many already suspected: the War on Terror will never end, nor is it meant to end. It is designed to be perpetual. As with the War on Drugs, it outlines a goal that can never be fully attained -- as long as there are pissed off people and explosives. The Long War will eternally justify what are ostensibly temporary measures: suspension of civil liberties, military expansion, domestic spying, massive deficit spending and the like. This short-lived moniker told us all, "get used to it. Things aren't going to change any time soon."

Answer 2

Wow you asked a lot of questions. Let me try. You can't win a war on terrorism for the same reason you can win a war on strategic surgical air strikes. Terrorism is a tactic. Unlike say communism or fascism which is an ideology or form of governing.

The war on poverty probably has the best chance, the problem is we have never and don't intend to fight it with the same verve as military wars. There oddly enough isn't much money for contractors in a war on poverty. I am not a liberal that is just fact. Military conflict can be very profitable.

The war on drugs, this is a tough one because drug use/abuse like terrorism is a tactic for confronting some other problem. People use drugs (legal and illegal) because they are in pain or better stated because something about them physical or mental doesn't feel right. If I have a headache and I simple keep taking aspirin I may never find that I actually have a tumor growing until I have either ruined my system with aspirin or die from the ruptured tumor.

The last question is by far the easiest. A doctrine of preemptive strike, even if I believe in it, which I don't, is dangerous for the world community, because it puts everyone (including current allies) at risks for our ire. You see because potentially every enemy might be planning to strike and therefore I have the right to strike first. Moreover since you probably have "former friends" from grade school, college, and work wherever even your current friends are potential enemies and there fore potential threats.

Hope I helped.

Answer 3

Seriously, define "Win." To fight a war against "Terror," is unwinnable -- as I underdstand "Win." At best we can oppress and fight to a stale mate -- this is the tactic the U.N. uses. Never in its history has the U.N. ever "Won" a war. The only way to "Win" such a war is through a complete genocide of an idea or religion. And doing that, makes us no better than those who would attack us because of our ideas and beliefs. And unfortunately, having read their "Holy" book, those who subscribe to its absolute meaning will never be willing to work out a peaceful solution whereby all sides leave one another alone.

Answer 4

only one of two ways...
1. God shows up and explains whats up with everything. This would work because their wouldn't be a need for fighting or anything over anything since we would know what the whole point of everything was.
2. if we were invaded by aliens 'a la' independence day. This would work because we would have to put aside our strife and fight a common enemy.

since neither is going to happen, we might as well get realistic. people will hate people for whatever reasons they want (problem with free will). you can't define a victory when half of the people you are going to end of fighting don't even know they hate you yet or in some cases aren't even born.
in the end, it is up to and will always be in the hands of the people to make change. it will not occur by the sword but by the hand.
one person can make a larger impact on ending the war on terror than the entire us military. however, until we as a people step up to the plate, we have to lean on the government to try to protect us. in the end, it is our choice to allow the war on terror to continue...

Answer 5

I dont know about the last guy who posted, but I dont live in fear of attack like Israel.

The only way to win the war on terror is through getting through to the middle east people. That in no way is just through "talks" like liberals like to think. Force is needed also. Millions were required to secure post WWII Japan and Germany, and we're tryin to secure Iraq and Afganistan (which is full of fanatics) with only a couple hundered thousand troops.

Israel stays as secure as it is, because Military Duty is REQUIRED.

I have a way to fix the immigration problem, and help the war. Every illegal immigrant who wishes to come into this country should serve a minimum of 3 years in a branch of the military.

Also a requirement of at least a year of duty should be required after you graduate highschool. Israel would have been wiped off the face of the earth if it had a strictly volunteer military.

Answer 6

You hit the nail directly on it's head. There is no "war on Terror", that is in fact propaganda. In our world there are 8 billion who follow Islam, I for one would not kill them all. I do not agree with the teachings of Islam. That said, I would not take anyones right away to practice whatever religion they chose. I would fight and die to protect my own freedom to chose my religion. Some of the 8 billion are in fact radical Muslims. Some Americans are also radical religious fanatics.
We are in occupation of Iraq. That is fact. In occupation there is no victory or defeat. Bush decided to ignore advice to have a exit plan. Why should Americans pay for Bush's mistake in Iraq?
Iraqis must want Democracy, it is not a gift to be given, it also can not be installed. Unless Iraqis are willing to die for it, nothing we do will change that fact. Iraqis could also agree to live together in peace or die fighting in civil war.
BTW, Some people are not even smart enough to already know "the alternative" to war is peace. Can we declare war on "some" people being stupid?

Answer 7

Yeah, we can win by protecting America. Instead of randomly invading other countries in a war that never ends, we would be better off spending the money to protect ourselves and our borders. I don't care if we have to have men with machine guns patrolling every inch of our borders and harbors. It would be less costly than fighting a war that never ends.

Answer 8

It is a rather ambigous thing to declare war on. There is no way to ever claim victory and you can have a perpetual war. Once you take down the current terrorists, a new crop will pop up. It is not something that civil liberties should be trampled upon for.

Answer 9

The war on terror will be won only when the wars on hate, oppression and poverty are won.

Otherwise, for 10 terrorists killed, 100 will appear.

Answer 10

To win the war end occupation of other people.