Proof we are winning the war on terror

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava
famous last words, diplomat

Damn, how many corners is this one?

Diplomat, let me tell you what will happen in Iraq. We'll draw down next summer since Congressional elections are coming and that will produce a power vacuum. Currently the Iraqi forces aren't even close to up to the job and the Iraqi ministries can't even pay their people on time much less complete civic projects so no one has faith in them. The odds are at least even that as soon as we're mostly out the door this country is going to decend into civil war. If we're lucky it will be a low intensity civil war like Nicaragua and if we're unlucky it will be like in the Balkans complete with death squads.

One thing is clear and that is the foreign troops are the only thing keeping a lid on this currently and once they're gone the odds are things will get much messier.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Terrorism is not a military problem, you can't fix it with military operations.

The best damn post here.

[GePap]

Terrorism is a TACTIC, and IDEA, a METHOD.

A war againt "terrorism" is just as moronic as a war on "drugs".

I hate that name. It has been idiotic from day 1.

[Az]

Like what?

In certain cases, crime can be tackled militarily.

How is terrorism a military problem? You are not facing an army. You are facing very angry people.

Hardly so. There are plenty of non-angry terrorists. Many, the vast majority of terrorists see terror as another frontier in the battlefield, in which they're willing soldiers. anger is only one of a host of reasons that can motivate such people.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Terrorism is a TACTIC, and IDEA, a METHOD.

A war againt "terrorism" is just as moronic as a war on "drugs".

I hate that name. It has been idiotic from day 1.

So i guess youd dislike a war on aggression too. Or a war on genocide. Since those are all tactics and methods as well.

[Pekka]

yeah war on aggression would be stupid. What does that mean, aggression? Whose aggression, does motives count?
War on genocide, that sounds stupid as well. It doesn't mean you wouldn't solve the problem or fight the cause or the actors of this genocide, but war in it would be.. well not the war itself.

[Az]

Terrorism is a TACTIC, and IDEA, a METHOD.

A war againt "terrorism" is just as moronic as a war on "drugs".

I hate that name. It has been idiotic from day 1.

I concur. But it's just a PC name for "War on Islamist fanatics"

[Asher]

If you were winning the war on terror, wouldn't you have been able to prevent the London and Bali bombings?

and what's this about New York instilling a state of terror in people by warning their public transit system is gonna be attacked?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
yeah war on aggression would be stupid. What does that mean, aggression? Whose aggression, does motives count?.

Yeah, well it was easier than calling WW2 "a war on Germany and its allies, except for finland, cause its only a cobelligerent, and and we know theyve had problems with aggression from the USSR, which is our ally against Germany, but not against Japan,etc, etc"

Hey guess what, during the cold war it was warm most days in Miami.

Arguing about names like this is infantile. Names of conflicts are chosen to increase political support, and to avoid unpalatable facts (WW2 couldnt be called a war on totalitarianism with the USSR on our side, and it couldnt be called a war on Germany per se, since we were "above" hating another nation, etc - and the WOT hasnt been called a war on Islamic fanaticism to make it more palatable with moderate muslims)

You know, there are still folks in this county who will dispute whether the American Civil War should instead be called "The War between the States" or "The War for Southern Independence"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
If you were winning the war on terror, wouldn't you have been able to prevent the London and Bali bombings?

a difference between winning, and won? (Not that im sure we're winning, just i dont think your point here is logical)

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
a difference between winning, and won? (Not that im sure we're winning, just i dont think your point here is logical)

There seems to have been more terrorist attacks this year than last, which is curious if you are "winning".

[Pekka]

Ok... why don't we call it the War On Evil Doers?

The problem with the War On Terror name is that terrorism hasn't been defined clearly enough.

Besides it sounds like a movie.

[lord of the mark]

even the UN thinks it definable

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

[Pekka]

Duh? Yeah, and you can argue those words until the end of the world.

What ever..

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

There seems to have been more terrorist attacks this year than last, which is curious if you are "winning".

the number of attacks in the west is so low its hardly a meaningful metric.

The number of attacks in the muslim world is far greater than the one in Bali. There are a number of sources for this sort of thing.


Again, I dont think the total number of attacks is declining, and by that metric were not winning. I just dont think the Bali and London bombings establish that.