Can the War on Terror Be Won?

Question

Bush's approach to the war on terror has created more terrorists than it has eliminated -- and that it will continue to do so unless the US radically changes course.

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

It will come not when Washington and its allies kill or capture all terrorists or potential terrorists but when the ideology the terrorists espouse is discredited. Has the Bush administration done a good job on that? I am afraid not.

Answer 1

At the core of most crimes, there are legitimate grievances which need to be addressed. You can look to the crime in the street, or the ones committed on an international stage.

My concern is that the underlying grievances which motivated the attacks on September 11th. were not addressed. These are seeds of brewing hatred and animosity towards the United States.

We hear lots of discussion about how they hate our freedoms, our religion, our society, but I find these explanations for the attacks to be highly suspect. For they allow us, in the United States to remain entirley uncritical of our own position.

Osama Bin Laden stated three reasons for the terrorist attack on September 11th. 1) The U.S. military baing system in Saudi Arabia, installed after the first gulf war 2) The US reflexive and one-sided suport for the brutal Israeili occupation of Palestinian territory (U.N. 242 and subsequent resolutions) and 3) the murderous sanctions on the Iraqi regime whick killed upwards of a million iraqi's, but did little to weaken the stranglehol of the Iraqi dictatorship.

Terrorism is an assymetrical threat, not to be challenged with traditional warfare techniques. To counter it requires intelligence, diplomacy........ iternational cooperation and police action.

And key, if you want to remove the threat of terrorism, stop participating in it. U.S. policy in the region has been, hitorically, vicious. This has bred animosity. You want to remove the animosity, change the policies which inspire hatred, first and foremost. In conjunction, international intelligence and policing operations should apprehend the criminals who committed the act, try them, and punish them.

The idea that this required a war between countries to resolve is ridiculous. The threat of terrorism has been used to justify wars in order to satisfy other policy objectives than fighting terrorism, including control of markets and a demonstration of US power to keep others in line, mafia - don style. All the while, the state department and CIA, in their own documents have all predicted and quantified the expected rise in terrorism that such actions and wars would produce. Eliminating terrorism falls below other concerns on the priority list of the Bush administraion, despite the propaganda which says contrary.

Answer 2

Anything is possible, but our current strategy, or lack thereof, certainly will not bring about victory. We are fighting a conventional war, while the insurgency in Iraq, and Al Qaeda at large, is fighting a guerilla war. Conducting a war in such a manner, that plainly demonstrates that we are ignoring the reality of what is going on, will not cause us to win, but instead will get us bogged down in a quagmire.

We can only win this War on Terror by first fighting the right militaristic battle, which is ultimately changing from a conventional war mindset to a guerilla war. This entails the elimination of individual figures, not making entire Islamic communities suffer by a large-scale invasion and occupation, like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our approach must be surgically precise, and not that of a haphazard cowboy. So we must change our overall strategy to involve, not regime changes, since terror cells are not beholden to regimes, but the slow elimination of those militant figures that recruit and aid and abed terrorism. Finally, we must work to make the Islamic world more secular. The only way to root out fanaticism is by obliterating the ideological fuel necessary for such radicalism, and undermining the influence of religion does this. The less religious a society is the less likely it will be to have a large number of citizens who practice lunacy.

We will know that we are winning the War on Terror, when Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, and Iraq look less like medieval theocracies, and look more like Denmark and Sweden.

Answer 3

No -

At best, we are currently only having a war on Muslim extremists.

Terror is not an overtly state-sponsored activity and thus cannot be effectively "fought" via a military (only a military response can be derived, which doesn't address the core issues fomenting terror).

terror is a criminal act, it is instigated by political, economic and imperialistic actions, thus, the causes be addressed ONLY by POLICIES and DIPLOMACY intended to lessen the driving causation. This means we need to understand the reasons WHY folks wish to do such; it may also mean changes to how we conduct ourselves.

As a criminal response, we can also infiltrate terrorist groups, but this requires knowledge and understanding, too. And further, we can derive better security to minimize any actual events from occurring.

Terror will always be a part of the human landscape. The ability to terrorize others is strictly a human construct and truly is a phenomenon that sets us apart from any other organism. Sometimes we do this as an offensive action, but often, terrorism is strictly a defensive means. Therefore it behooves us to understand why folks may wish to conduct such.

Answer 4

No because there is no war on terror. Terror is a tactic, used by people with goals. A terrorist is a soldier with a bomb but no air force.

This is not an original idea. Conservative commentator, Patrick Buchanan, has said there is no more a war terror than there was a war on the blitzkrieg in World War II. Both are tactics.

The goals of the terrorists vary. Osama bin Laden and most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. One of Osama's major goals is to get U.S. military bases out of Saudi Arabia. He is offended by the idea of "infidels" living in the holy land of Mecca. He also hates the Saudi princes who are in control of Saudi Arabia, because they have allowed U.S. bases in the country and because they have enriched themselves by allowing the country's oil wealth to be sold to the west for relatively low prices and then keeping the money for themselves. Other terrorists are concerned with U.S. policy towards Israel.

When politicians insist on talking about the "war on terror" they allow themselves to completely ignore what is bothering the terrorists. I am not saying we should give the terrorists what they want, but maybe by listening to them, we could avoid pissing off a large segment of the Muslim world unnecessarily.

Answer 5

I think it can be won, but the long-term solution won't be military. It will be economic and political.

In bad economic times, people are more likely to take extreme positions. They embrace more radical or fundamental positions on religion, social beliefs, etc. When jobs are plentiful, they are more likely to focus on other things - family, business, friends, etc. And when economic ties to other groups make their own success and well-being dependent on the success and well-being of others, they tend to try to make sure that those others are doing well, rather than attacking them.

The same thing happens in politics. During wars, etc, people are more likely to take extreme positions. But if they have to work with the other side in order to survive and prosper, they probably will.

So the long-term solution is to find ways to interact with the moderates in those areas. Build business ties with them. Buy their products, sell them ours. Educate both sides about the other side's culture, language, and history. When the population sees these people doing well, and they see the extremists living off bark and sand in the deserts, which way do you think they'll go?

Or we can just wait until the oil runs out, and the world switches over to another fuel. Then the middle east will suddenly revert to a backwater region again, that few people care about.

Answer 6

No. Ur right Bush has created more terrorist groups which mean more enemies. If the war between the Israeli and palestine cant come to a halt then what makes us believe that the war on terror can be won?

Answer 7

The answer to your question is 'YES' but Bush & Company and the political leadership of this country, regardless of party, are not interested in 'victory' as any normal sane person would understand it. 'Victory' in the war on terror for them looks like George Orwells "1984". It is not necessary, or even desirable, for them to kill or capture all terrorists or potential terrorists or discredit the ideology the terrorists espouse. For them, that the 'Troup Serge' seems to be working in Iraq is a bad thing, a very bad thing! Get your 'Diaster Pack' ready 'cause something fixin' to go down.....

Answer 8

Can you actually win a war on terror with terror? No. Looking at the definition of terror (taken from Wilkipedia):Terrorism in the modern sense[1] is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals.

Unfortunately that definition of terrorism would include most countries on the planet, which we deem modern democratic nations, including the United States. It is nothing against any nation or government or group, but you can not expect that people will stop using terrorism if it is used against them. The dropping of bombs on a village (coming out of no where to destroy) is too much different than a suicide bomber (coming out of no where to destroy). Both have a huge terror factor to them, however, the terrorist suicide bomber does not have access to planes to drop their bombs. We must realize that people fight back with whatever means they have, rocks, suicide bombers, planes, tanks, etc. We are kidding ourselves if we think that it is different by dropping bombs from the sky. The only difference is the vehicle that the terror is delivered with. We view a suicide bomber (killing innocent people) as a terrorist and the other side views dropping bombs (killing innocent people) from the sky as a terror as well. So how do you win by fighting terror with terror? It is impossible to change someones mind by slapping them in the face and telling them it is wrong to slap someone in the face.
To win the war on terror, education, women's rights, etc must be put into place. But the people must also want to have these and the people of the nation or nations must fight for it.

Answer 9

A brother in law recently said something interesting:

"If China invaded on Friday and killed the Bush Administration, I'd spend the day cheering. On Saturday, I'd start killing Chinese."

It all has to do with 60 years of meddling in foreign policy in the Middle East, and not just with the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran to reinstall the Shah. Against better advice, Eisenhower stepped into the Suez Crisis and the Brits were so happy! They said "Ok, the problem's yours now" and left Israel to us.

Carter was supporting the mujahadeen in Afghanistan while bin Laden was still a teenaged, spoiled rich kid in Saudi Arabia. We trained and armed what is now Al Qaeda ("the base", CIA term). We and Israel helped form Hamas as an irritant to the secular Fatah in Palestine.

Reagan's speech supporting the Christian Falangists in Lebanon led to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.

The chickens have been coming home to roost for a long time over the issue of our meddling in Middle Eastern politics. The latest is result is our coming loss of Turkey as an ally.

Answer 10

the short answer is no way. how can a war on an idea be won???? it cant simply because violence begets violence. to truly destroy the idea of terrorism would ammount to genocide. these people have been lopping the heads off their percieved enemies since before Christ and they will continue to do it for 2000 more years. the way that I see this is the radical Muslims simply want to kill rape and pillage for the sake of violence it has nothing to do with religion. My fear is that the USA is moving in that same direction (a nation of christian ruling) Bush has already declared this a christian nation. while the vast majority of Americans claim to be christian we still must maintain our secular government or fall into the islamic nation trap killing those who dont "believe" ths same way as the guy holding the gun