What would victory in the "war on terror" look like?

Question

I am left on the political spectrum, radical left. But this quesion is open to all. I feel like supportes of the war may not have a clear, rational understanding of the objectives of the war. Is it just military domination and suppression/ How will the hatred of the west, and its policies be alleviated.. just by crushing force? Because it seems that this will just breed more animosity.

Conservatives and liberals alike... what does an end to this war look like?

And if you say "to bring democracy" i challenge you with the historical record which clearly indicates that US policy is not concerned with real democracy. We support regimes which are undemocratic, but serve our interests. We overthrow democratically elected governments if they dont open up their resources to our crporations dominating their economy. The record on this is clear, and if you want to challenge this historic reality, come with evidence, homies........ Peace.

Answer 1

Complete victory in the war in Iraq would be for the country to be able to defend its citizens and govern itself in a way that benefits all of its citizens without need for funding aid or military aid from the USA or any other country. To benefit its citizens includes not supporting terrorism (which would only result in more war). It would be nice if that government were a republic, but that isn't a requirement for success.

Victory in the war on terror is very different and much larger in scope. The goal of the war on terror is to destroy the agenda of the radical Muslims. The goal of the radical Muslims is to take full control of the world and make every human being bow to their religious/political leader(s). The only way I know of to stop radical Muslims is to exterminate them. Therefore I define victory in the war on terror as killing every radical Muslim on the planet. They would do no less for any person with any beliefs that are in disagreement with their own.

Answer 2

Good question. When you think about it, victory in the "war on terror" is a meaningless concept. Terrorism isn't a country, a group of people, or even an ideology. It's a tactic. How do you defeat a tactic? Terrorism will always be available to angry, unscrupulous people.

The people in charge wouldn't want to win the "war on terror" even if they could, because its real purpose is to keep Americans patriotic and obedient and a little scared. Meanwhile, the rich and powerful go about their business of becoming more rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

Communism and the supposed Soviet threat served the same purpose during the Cold War. The US basically kept the Cold War going despite the Russians' willingness to make peace. After Communism fell, the leaders had to scramble to come up with a new threat to scare us with. They came up with Bill Clinton and his moral laxity, until 9/11 gave them everything they needed.

Answer 3

I'm not much into politics, nut I'd say that the end of this war would look a lot like thousands of American women and men getting of of airplanes and boats. Men and women around the nation rejoicing for the return of their loved ones. That's all I can see when I think of the end of the war.
I don't know whether I'd be considered a Democrat or Republican, but I truly think we should have left the Middle East a long time ago, and agree that our "crushing force" will just breed animosity toward the U.S. from countries around the globe.

Answer 4

The second coming? I don't think it is possible to win but perhaps it can be minimized. Terrorism has been happening for ever. In ancient times, entire populations of cities were eliminated to scare the next city into surrendering. The Spanish Inquisition was Roman Catholic terrorism. The indigenous North American peoples killed people (both indigenous and European) at random and annihilated entire villages if they were easy targets to make a point. It is practiced by both the weak and the strong and for practically any grievance. The vast majority that we hear of these days is being done by radical Islamacists that see anything as modern or western as evil. They have far too few followers to take out most western nations so they resort to terror tactics against both westerners and their own people in an attempt to get their way. If western economies can be disrupted enough or enough western freedoms are lost to combat their acts, they could gain ever more converts in the turmoil. In the past, they saw the west as impervious to change so made their attacks on secular Islamic countries but having failed everywhere for so long, they are now aiming at the western countries. Inaction by the USA especially in increasingly brazen attacks has led them to believe they have chosen well.

That is the background. To minimize current terrorism, one must, IMO, use three methods. One is too pool intelligence, find their followers, and hit them hard. This includes going into countries that aid them and allow them to train and taking out the government if they resist and empowering a new government that will not do so. Second, any assets or fund raising activities must be shut down. The USA failed miserably in this when Irish terrorists were allowed to raise funds within the USA disguised as charities. No laws were passed to combat this. Finally, much of the cause is from the Islamic world having fallen so far behind the west. Basic services are often provided by organizations such as Hamas thus insuring people that do not believe in their ways supporting them anyway. A sort of Marshall Plan aimed at improving infrastructure and ecoonomic viability with limited isolation (not enough to ensure their failure) of corrupt governments is needed. I don't care what sort of governments these are - the key is that conditions should improve enough so that radical Islamacists lose followers. They will still use terror but will find people willing to shelter them harder to find leading to their capture and execution. The USA especially has to stop forcing our idea of governance on cultures totally alien to our own. Iraq is a great example. The British experience with them after WWI is eerily similar to what we have today. Each faction likes "democracy" as long as their faction makes the rules. King Faisal could not rule without the RAF because the Sunnis feared the Shi'ites and both hated the Kurds. Either they get a ruthless dictator or the current situation or three separate countries will result. Even with separate countries, there will be constant incursions and attempts to change the borders without firm international resolve not to allow this. Without a strong or homogeneous government, aid will never reach the people so the conditions inciting terrorism will continue. Putin is popular in Russia because Russian infrastructure was not ready for the free market nor did the people understand "democracy". Things got worse and he made them better. Hitler was popular for the same reason. Either the conditions for aloowing radical governance are ended or people like them and radical Islamacists will come to power.

"Victory" will look like today only tamer.

Answer 5

I think victory would be Osama bin Laden hanging from a short rope, or the mountains hiding him between Pakistan and Afghanistan being replaced with a huge mushroom cloud and everything around to for miles at one foot above sea level... I bet there would be some democracy then! Where's Truman when we need him? I think the next time something like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happens, its time to show the world why we are called bullies, and go Hiroshima and Nagasaki on their unthankful dispositions... what country and its people give more to charity and other countries of the world than America? Answer me that...

Answer 6

it truly is form of like the warfare on drugs. i do no longer pay attention lots communicate approximately that for the duration of recent times. i assume it truly is not a count of triumphing or dropping, yet a count of being accepted. The Drug warfare isn't accepted, so we don't communicate approximately it anymore. It does no longer mean that it became ever gained or lost. We in basic terms traded our purple ribbons for American flags that say something like "we can in no way overlook." for the reason that 9/11 it makes Bush truly accepted to be beating up on meant terrorists. So, i might say he's triumphing some form of political victory. i assume he could invade Pakistan in time before the subsequent election to truly locate Osama and "win." yet some say there's no money in Pakistan, so it truly is not nicely actually worth the attempt. To human beings i think of getting Osama could be the spectacular victory. If it truly is not attainable, we can declare we gained via saying issues like we've prevented terrorist assaults on our very own soil for the previous 5 years. think of the terrorists' attitude, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that. What might they money in on yet another attack now? we are already terrified and on some form of "terrorist mania," even 5 years after the main adventure. In some techniques, the persevered concentration on terrorism is making them the actual winners. until that ends, they are going to be triumphing, in my opinion.

Answer 7

There will never be an end to a war on terror. No matter what anyone does, there will always be terrorists. Unless they go for the all-inclusive victory---total nuclear annihilation of the world. That is the only "for sure" victory.

Answer 8

Have no idea anymore what peace would be like. Perhaps the ability to leave your home without fear? Perhaps not having some idiot blow himself and real people to bits? It is hard to explain peace to people in the Middle East, they have never had a peaceful day at least according to the bible. But how wonderful it would be to feel safe traveling anywhere in the world. I cannot imagine this.

Answer 9

It can't end as long as "free speech" means people can preach hate and blame local problems on remote people and claim you can go to heaven if you kill any of them.

There are hateful Muslims like this, and hateful Christians too. Remember the Oklahoma City Federal building ?

Preaching hatred, or advocating any hate crime, should not be tolerated. It is as bad as murder, since you are trying to convince multiple individuals to kill. If an entire country seems to advocate that, hmm, maybe atomic weapons can be used again. Is it wrong to seek to stop a large group of people who want to kill you ? If the only way to stop them is to kill them, that then seems justified.

Answer 10

The victory of Muslim terrorism would look like this.
1. When a bomb goes off the first thought would not be oh it is Muslim again.
2. Muslims would protest side by side Christians and Jews on terrorists acts.
3. People would be more aware and not allow people to build bombs in their homes or in their places of worship.