*What is your definition of "winning" the war on terrorism?

*Do you think it can be won?

*Is the invasion of Iraq a good start? Will it give other countries a reason not to support terrorism because of fear the US will intervene militarily?

 

 

I agreed with President Bush when he said the war on terror could not be won and I still believe that. Maybe in a thousand years when ALL people have non-violent avenues to express their insecurities and frustrations will terrorism be eradicated. However, until that time comes (if it does) the best we can hope for is a global coalition of states that move resources from conventional military towards more specialized units that take out top leadership of terrorists. The sharing of information is key as well as winning the support of the masses who sympathize with the terrorists.

 

thats my uneducated opinion lets see what others think.

You can win the war on terrorims, but you can't elimate terrorism as a factor in the world. The supreme commander of all terrorism isn't going to surrender on a battleship in Tokyo bay.

As long as there are free thinking psychos who think the United States are "evil", there will be terrorists and terrorist attacks. I think you can't win the war on terror in terms of totally eliminating terrorism and terrorists, unfortunately.

To be honest, I think the "War on Terrorism" is unrealistic. Terrorism has existed for many many years, and I doubt that it will suddenly stop because we eliminate their leaders. If our intelligence services are funded and staffed competently, then we should be alright.

It seems hard to defeat an ideology. I'll say no, but it can be put in serious check.

The problem is terrorism goes beyond the people who cause trouble now. It has always existed. The KKK was a terrorist organization. The guy who killed Franz Ferdinand can be considered a terrorist. The question rather is will there always be people with such extreme ideology that they will act out such to undermine general society and bring fear for their own political purpose?

 

Its foolish to think the radicals in the middle east are some new breed of humans that must removed to restore humanity to its old form. That they are the first to ever think of the idea of bringing terror to others. I feel like some people see this as some recent trend that needs to be stopped. Terrorism didnt start and wont stop with them. The idea of terrorism goes well beyond them. It goes to the very heart of human actions to those that make the decision to bring mass terror to others. Can that be stopped? Well its a different issue. Right now they may be the biggest threat to America but defeating them doesnt defeat terrorism. Its like saying can we win the war against bad people.

 

What tonyi says Ill agree with(gasp). Its scary how easily people can bring terror to our lives. Our primary protection against terror boils down to common human decency. Any one of us, if we choose to do it, could cause a lot of pain in a lot of people's lives. Criminals who cause terror and get caught most often are really stupid or greedy. Look at what David Berkowitz did to NY..all with one Saturday night special.

No, it can't be won.

 

You don't even need a group of guys to be a terrorist, you could strap a bomb to yourself, go into a mall and you're a freakin' terrorist (as long as you have a message; no message=nut). As long as there are disenfranchised people with no money for an army, government and real weapons terror will be a problem.

Tom Clancy's book "The Teeth of the Tiger" showed how a group of terrorists could cross the Mexican border, and then set themselves up in malls across the country, ready to basically just shoot everyone in sight within these buildings in order to spread fear to Middle America.

The idea of victory over terrosrism is created by an outdated concept of conflict.

 

This is asymetrical warfare that also encompasses non-military efforts to change societies en masse.

 

People need to stop templating the outcomes of historical conflicts like WWI, WWII...etc... on these types of conflicts. There is really no endgame in this type of conflict.

 

Heck, we still haven't "won" the war against communism. Remember when communism was the most perilous threat imaginable?

Good post FF. Both sides try and characterize it like this though and its almost too late to stop now for fear of not sounding "tough" on terror.

The idea of victory over terrosrism is created by an outdated concept of conflict.

 

This is asymetrical warfare that also encompasses non-military efforts to change societies en masse.

 

People need to stop templating the outcomes of historical conflicts like WWI, WWII...etc... on these types of conflicts. There is really no endgame in this type of conflict.

 

Heck, we still haven't "won" the war against communism. Remember when communism was the most perilous threat imaginable?

593940[/snapback]

 

Yeah I agree. I hate the WW2 analogies made today..that war was one of a kind.

How do you stop terror? You can never fully eliminate it, but you can greatly reduce it in frequency and magnitude by improving the conditions in places were terror occurs. Any radical ideological movements require mass participation, even terrorism to a lesser scale. There need to be several people willing to committ the terrorists acts and it goes beyond just a few radicals. Radical ideologies are spread when crisis situations and other such negative living conditions exist in certain areas. Terrorists loathe capitalism, but if capitalism can spread peacefully and willingly into the middle eastern countries for example it will already aid in reducing the spread of radical ideologies and terror. Usually terror groups do not speak for the whole population, so when someone concedes to a terror organization, it creates more incentive to commit acts of terror. I will go int ofurther detail on my analysis if needed