Thoughts on 'The War on Terror'

[Jefferson]

Calls for withdrawal from Afghanistan & Iraq were criticized as "waving the white flag" and surrendering. Defeat is pretty clearly defined as disengagement from our current wars and a draw-down of our forces.

I don't believe anyone in the United States is pro-terrorism, but I haven't seen many conservatives address the accusation that the War on Terror is a perpetual war. Isn't war defined as a conflict between two states or entities? If you can war against an intangible noun like terror, can you war against happiness? A particular color like blue or red or purple? Submarines? Dolphins? Whales? Cows? Chickens?

What is 'victory' in the War on Terror? One answer I've been given is: Complete eradication of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and all other terrorist organizations throughout the world? Fair enough. But while you can destroy the organization, can you destroy the idea? If these people (rightly or wrongly) view our country as being an oppressive occupying force, won't there always be people or groups that band together and utilize terrorism to achieve their ends?

And if the answer is yes: Do you realize what this would take? It would require a vast expansion of our forces worldwide (which would further stress our financial resource and add to our debts, which are approaching post WWII-levels as it is). I can appreciate that conservatives believe that we are battling for freedom and safety against very misguided and evil people, I just fear that they too often get lost in admirable slogans of defending freedom and liberty without giving realistic analysis to the real costs (in lives, time, money) to our country.

I'm not saying there are easy answers. If we draw down our military, I fear we'll ultimately face retribution from our enemies. But I also fear we cannot keep such a large military prescence for an extended period of time without risking the structural integrity or our economy or international reputation.

[fjccommish]

"can you war against happiness? A particular color like blue or red or purple? Submarines? Dolphins? Whales? Cows? Chickens? "

Have any of those things plotted and carried out attacks that have killed thousands of people?

Do any of those share a philosophy that calls for killing those not like them?

The War on Terror was, without saying it because of PC, a war on Islamic extremists who carry out terror attacks. As such it is a war on a specific group who, BTW, attacked first.

[Jefferson]

"can you war against happiness? A particular color like blue or red or purple? Submarines? Dolphins? Whales? Cows? Chickens? "

Have any of those things plotted and carried out attacks that have killed thousands of people?

Do any of those share a philosophy that calls for killing those not like them?

The War on Terror was, without saying it because of PC, a war on Islamic extremists who carry out terror attacks. As such it is a war on a specific group who, BTW, attacked first.

Again, I go back to my question: can you defeat the IDEA of terror? You can kill a man, destroy a building, but you cannot destroy an idea or means.

"War of Terror" in your definition would be a misnomer. It should be "War on Terrorist Organizations" or something similar.

[vol_fan]

"can you war against happiness? A particular color like blue or red or purple? Submarines? Dolphins? Whales? Cows? Chickens? "

Have any of those things plotted and carried out attacks that have killed thousands of people?

Do any of those share a philosophy that calls for killing those not like them?

The War on Terror was, without saying it because of PC, a war on Islamic extremists who carry out terror attacks. As such it is a war on a specific group who, BTW, attacked first.

I think what Jefferson is saying is that terrorism is a tactic and therefore what does "winning" a war against that tactic look like. IMO, winning a war on terror is an impossible feat to accomplish just like the war on drugs or the war on poverty.

If you are correct that the war on terror was a thinly veiled war against Islamic extremists (which I believe it was) I still don't understand what a "win" looks like. Sure, the Taliban and Hamas and others can surrender (seems unlikely but I guess it could happen) but another group can just as easily rise in their place.

Perhaps if we had concentrated solely on eradicating the Taliban and those who sponsored 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of invading Iraq for some reason we might not be having this conversation right now.