War on terrorism?

Question

Why does it seem that the American public and the rest of the western world think they can win the war on terrorism quickly? In my opinion the war on terrorism is a very long war, that has only just begun! I want to hear your opinions on this and whether you agree with me or not!

The first battle occurred in the Afghanistan invasion by the United States when the Taliban and Al Qaeda were attacked. Now, the Taliban has resurfaced and it is very unclear what will happen in that country.

The second battle is taking place in Iraq at this very moment. Now, I disagree with the war in Iraq, but, this is only the second battle out of many.

CNN has stated that the threat of terrorism, and the numbers of terrorists has grown due to the "battles" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks for your opinions on this subject, and I hope to hear some good answers, on your opinions on the war, and whether you agree with my assessment of the war. Thanks for answering!

Answer 1

Terrorism is an ideological issue. Diminishing a terrorist threat can't be achieved by military means. Terrorism needs political and diplomatic interferences to plant a destabilizing factors in its nucleus to weaken its infrastructure and foundation. Unfortunately, our president whom I voted and supported, disappointed me in his approach against terrorism. In my opinion and millions of people agree with me that the Iraqi war has nothing to do with terrorism. As a matter of fact, Saddam kept terrorism in check in the Middle East. Iran is considered a terrorist country and feared Saddam and could not promote terrorism in the Middle East. Saddam never allowed Syria to play its role in the Middle East. Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other and Al-Qaida could not establish its network in Iraq during Saddam's regime. Iraqis are very difficult people to control due to their sect and background differences. Iraqi people are very faithful to their various ideological beliefs. Iraqis need a tough president like Saddam to control them. Maliki is a weak leader for Iraq and our president supported him. Maliki has strong ties with Iran and Syria. Why would Bush support a weak leader who keeps in touch with terrorist countries? We invaded Afghanistan because Taliban supported and harbored Bin Laden, am I correct? I truly believe that Bush's approach to invade Iraq created resentment among the Extremist Muslim fractions. Bush gave them the opportunity to be united and much stronger against us. We invaded Iraq but never secured its borders to prevent Bin laden from infiltrating to establish his evil network inside Iraq or Afghanistan. Bush gave America a bad name and millions of people hate us now. Extremists Muslims throughout the world are continuing to be united against us. The situation is getting worst and terrorism is growing even stronger because of Bush's arrogance who is digging our brave troops' graves even deeper.

Answer 2

Sun Tzu said "In joining battle, seek the quick victory...in war, I have heard of foolish haste, but I have yet to see a case of cleverly dragging on the hostilities. There has never been a state that has benefited from an extended war." ... "When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength." ... "Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."

I'm not sure why or if the American public think the war can be won quickly. Some think so, by using nukes, or fewer rules of engagement. Others would not approve of any of that.

I'll agree it is and will be a long war, because no one will declare it over. It has no end, and no clear beginning. You say the first battle was in Afghanistan? Some will say it began on 9/11. But there was the first attack on the World Trade Center, and all that happened in the movie "The Road to 9/11" before that. I don't think there will be many more "battles", if battles are countries invaded. Maybe one more with Iran, even if it is just an air and sea battle. Maybe Pakistan. The military won't have enough troops to control all that territory, so any attacks are likely to be bombing raids. Then it will be back to the phony war or cold war status that was the war between 1993 and 2001. Terrorists will plot, there will be secret efforts against them, and possibly secret efforts to help them by countries that are playing both sides. I think historians 100+ years from now will pick through it and debate the beginning and end points. Even whether it was all one war or not. Certainly there was nothing called "The War on Terror" before 9/11. But the war in Iraq between March and May 2003 is sometimes called the Second Gulf War, part of a chain of events that started in 1990.

There will continue to be terrorists for some time to come. There will probably stop being so much military action because people don't want it. But it will slow down without ever being declared over.

Answer 3

I agree that the war has barely begun. In fact, I'm tempted to characterize Afghanistan and Iraq as pre-war conflicts. They are wars in those countries of course, but a world-wide conflict is coming, maybe in 10-15 years or so.
This is inevitable because Islamo-fascism is on the rise. We cannot stop it early on. The free and open nature of the West will not permit a tyrannical suppression even of this despicable ideology. Only as the movement grows more egregious will the West (and others on the side of justice) fight with determination. Only when we see the shape it is developing into, will we even be able to act effectively against it.
This doesn't mean we can do nothing now. If our leaders take the right actions, it may give us an advantage in the war to come.
You can't prevent the war from coming, but you can prepare for it.

Answer 4

I agree with your first assessment, it will be a long and difficult war to fight. For the simple reason that Al Qaeda is taking sanctuary in Pakistan. Even though Pakistan is our ally, there doesn't seem to be much cooperation.

We left entirely too few troops in Afghanistan, leaving our few troops and handful of Afghan rebels to eliminate Bin-La din and his Al Qaeda regime.

The battle in Iraq is not a war on terrorism. We were sent into Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, (none were present), and to eliminate a ruthless tyrant. We eliminated Sadam and some of his generals, after which we declared "Mission Accomplished). We then decided to occupy the country, thus causing a civil war between factions that had been at odds with each other since 732 a.d. Iraq was nothing more than a figment of Winston Churchill's imagination. Kurds to the North with Turkey having the most influence in the area. Shia's to the east with an Iranian flavor. And Sunni's to the west with Syria and Arabia dictating the direction. The civil upheaval that exists today will be raging for years to come. It will involve most of the surrounding countries, and will provide Al Qaeda a mixing pot in which to thrive and breed.

Answer 5

The Iranians (that are supporting the insurgents) have hated America for a long time and blame us for everything.

I'm with Bush (Did you hear his speech today) that we cannot give up, Nobody likes war and the liberals are impatient and only want for themselves, they are not thinking in long term.

As long as America is friends with Israel this will continue.
And if ever we abandon Israel, it will still continue. This has been going on with these people since the beginning of time.