Can we win a war against a tactic?

Question

Terrorism is a tactic, not a political or social force in and of itself. Anyone can use it, and the idea that you can wage a "war" against it is unconscionable.

Answer 1

Yes, with the right strategerie.

Answer 2

I just read an interesting column about this very thing. Here is part of it and the link:

The damage these three words ("war on terror") have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is the author most recently of "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower" (Basic Books).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

Answer 3

we won't be able to win this war on terrorism. It purely isn't in Iraq or Afghanistan, that's interior the Philipeans, Malaysia, throughout Africa, no longer in basic terms the middle East. i don't have a defeatist innovations-set, I certainly have a realist outlook. What Krytox stated approximately us beating Japan throughout WWII isn't an identical because of fact the war on Terror. We fought fans, no longer terrorists. We fought bona fide defense force varieties. definite, that they had suicide pilots, as properly because of fact the massed "banzai" floor assaults, that's certainly no longer something better than suicide. yet all with genuine defense force objectives. Yeah, i comprehend all with regard to the Rape of Nan king, and the homicide of 1000's of 1000's of chinese language. It grew to become right into a poor tragedy, besides the fact that it grew to become into an profession stress doing because it delighted while and the place it wanted to. Terrorists at the instant are not occupying something, they are not the conquerors. they're Terrorists. If we nuked Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, the Philipeans, Malaysia, etc. purely how livable might the international be? We do this to get at each of different international places terrorists, then we nonetheless lose. the ideal we are in a position to do is pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, carry them residing house, and have them initiate holding our seashores. enable the CIA, and all those varieties carry mutually the tips for us distant places, and attempt to keep away from yet another 9/11.

Answer 4

Yes... we can win a war against Terrorism but by not fighting the actual terrorism events. These events are very sporadic events that are meant to cause sudden distress.

In order to fight Terrorism, or the fear that terrorism causes we must go and find the source that terrorism exists. By having forces continuing to search for terrorism cells domestically and abroad allows us to strategically win battles that will inhibit future terrorism events.

Answer 5

Not only can you not win a war against a tactic, you can't even fight a war against a tactic.

Fighting against nouns hasn't worked out too well for us either- look at the war on drugs!

Answer 6

Heck... its not even any one particular group of people!!! Anyone could become a terrorist at anytime and for any reason... How do you win against that...?? the best thing to do is to find a way to stop sticking your arms into the basket of snakes!

It seems like by definition anyone who fights anything in a physical or violent fashion is a "terrorist"

The only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to cut off everyones arms at birth... even then people would learn to use their feet.

"we must strike terror within them."
If this the strategy for fighting terror... then essentially... we are attempting to fight terror with terror...

Answer 7

Bush's main tactic is incompetence, I think that is a tactic which can be defeated in a war.

Answer 8

War on terrorism is a euphamism for war against Islamofascists. The latter is not PC. You are using a semantic trick, as I'm sure you already know.

Answer 9

A new and evolving form of warfare yes. To combat 'terrorism' we must turn to a hybrid of military and police tactics. Unlike a police force we cannot use soft gloves with terrorists; we must strike terror within them. Folks who attack civilian targets are of themselves cowards.

Answer 10

We have tactics of our own. They are not unique in having any sort of tactics. They are just different tactics.