Why is the "War on Terror" such a failure?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071008/ts_nm/britain_iraq_afghanistan_dc

the "war on terror" is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements

How many hints do we have to give until the "neocons" get it!!!! Just wondereing!!!!

Oops...wondering....

Answer 1

I read the article this morning, I find it funny that people still believe that everything is going right on the war on terror.

If we are winning the war on terror then how come we are still worried about Al K-Duh.

Also why do people think that just because terrorists haven't attacked the U.S. that it won't happen again. If it isn't obvious to anyone they actually plan things out, just like 9/11.

Answer 2

The concept that a war can be declared on an ideal (radical Islam) or tactic(terrorism) is simply ridiculous, given that those who engage in such a war end up adopting some of those same tactics, along with an extreme ideology, similar to those of their perceived enemy. Fighting fire with fire only fans the flames of hatred on both sides of the dispute.

The reason why the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been failing is generally due to poor planning, poor execution, and poor maintenance. Also, the overall purpose for involvement in these conflicts continually changes in order to justify unnecessary continued presense in those regions, thereby negating any need for an exit strategy.

Answer 3

You can't have a war on a concept, first of all.

Because President Bush failed to follow the Powell Doctrine in deciding whether to commit troops to this debacle.

Then-Governor Bush was asked during the first Presidential debate with Al Gore how he, as President, would decide that it was in the national interest. His response paraphrased the Powell Doctrine:

"Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy."

Later on in his response, he said that Vice President Gore "believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously."

It's a good thing he beat Gore, isn't it? Imagine how America would be if our troops were out there doing nation building, in, say...well, I'm sure you can think of a country.

P.S. Don't say I hate the troops, either. My 20 year (7330 days total) in uniform say otherwise.

Answer 4

Terrorism has and will always exist. It is merely a method used by desperate people to fight what they see as a superior force usually occupying their land or to advance an ideal. It was used by the vandals, thugs, the Khans, the Huns, native people to repel encroachment by Europeans onto their lands and by others. It has been used for centuries. There is no such thing as a war on terror itself. Perhaps one can war against the ideals, tenets, states that use such tactics but not terrorism itself. Generally terrorists are rogues not necessarily connected with any particular government but will take aid and support from whoever will give it.

The Vikings terrorized Europe but the terrorists were not defeated. They eventually won or the circumstances that caused them to resort to terror as a method of fighting went away and they settled such places as Moscow, Stockholm, Oslo and Copenhagen. The English warrior Queen Boudica used terrorism to fight her enemies who were much better equiped and trained than hers. She lost but it wasn't because of the terrorism. It was that she was simply out numbered by a much superior force than her own. There are pirates on the high sees even today who terrorize for money. These are not of any particular political, geographic, or idealistic nature but simply out of greed. No one can win against terrorism. It doesn't happen like that. Circumstances change that cause those using terrorism to stop using it. That can range from removal of the reason they are terrorizing others to changes in political or idealogical circumstances.

Answer 5

I do believe you can have a war on ideology and win.The type of Islam Osama and his buddies stand for is medieval and the majority of Muslims would reject Taliban style rule.They're people,they like music and freedom.Muslims need an alternative and we should play them apart.The West is failing because we do exactly what the extremists want and predicted.America invaded a sovereign secular regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and that's now more Muslim than before.
We try to steal their resources in a colonial way,ruin their country due to incompetence and then blame the puppet regime for not meeting benchmarks.

Radical Islam is a problem because it goes directly against our liberal value's like freedom of speech,separation of church and state,equal rights for women and gay people,we're not there and on a lot of issue's our societies also aren't yet perfect but radical Islam definitely wants to go back.

The saddest and most destructive element that frustrates this war on radical Islam is that it'(s been hijacked by the Neocons who stand for economic and political Imperialism.They use the threat of radical Islam but their real goal is always cash and unilateral American power.Using America's super power status to dominate politically and economically through Superior military force.

Answer 6

untill we take care of the route causes of this and go after the right people there is no "winning"

1. get Osama Bin Laden, unfortunately for the last few years the US focus has been on Iraq

2. stop the flow of money and terrorist volunteers from the Saudi kingdom or better yet take out the Saudi government and install democratic institutions (the Saudi's are one of the most represive regimes in the world yet the US supports them, why?)

3. solve the Isreali/Palestinian issue

Answer 7

Well the problem is that at the outset of any war, any battle, there needs to be an objective to complete. That's the answer plain and simple, the government doesn't know what it wants to do, so it has no methodology for completing its objective. Instead, we have extended a theoretically endless offer to stay in Iraq, because we have no idea exactly what needs to be accomplished there.

Answer 8

I think what the article is trying to to say is that we need more than just a military solution. We need to move to the next level and attack the roots of Islamic Extremism. I don't think it is a failure so much as it has lost momentum.

Answer 9

Maybe because it's only an excuse to get to Iraq's oil. Iraq didn't do 9/11...and war does terrorize people.

Answer 10

If people are attacking you for having your military near thier holy places and you refuse to move your military then your going to fail.
Ossma Ben LOWDOWN said he the U.S. Military in Saudi Arabia was the only reason he was fighting the USA.
So many places the U.S. Military could be besides in Arabia but well here we are.
Protecting the WEALTHY SAUDI'S is what this is all about don't be fooled.