It seems like we've never actually had this discussion. We've talked about Afganistan, Iraq, boarder control, national security, etc., but we've never talked about how we intend to win the war against islamic terrorists. Our most powerful enemy in this fight in Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda. So to keep the conversation bounded, lets stick to them, but keep two things in mind.

First, we must remember that bin Laden and his cohorts have very specific strategic goals for the wat they wage, not least among them is America withdrawing its military presense from the Arabian Peninsula.

Second, we should realize that al Qaeda is not exclusively a terrorist organization. Its main aim is to train and coordinate insurgencies through out the middle east, particuarly Iraq and Afganistan. This means we cannot treat al Qaeda as simply a collection of criminals. We can't round them all up John Wayne style to bring them to justice. They have engaged us in a military assault.

Now. How do we win the war against al Qaeda? Our enemy knows no national boarders and has no central government. We are already engaged in Iraq and Afganistan, leaving us very few military resources to expand the fight further and maintain our other military commitments. So expanding our campaign militarily seems to be out of the question given current conditions.

What do we do?

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ``]

8/5/2005 5:34:32 PM

its not a war
its a global struggle

pay attention

8/5/2005 5:41:59 PM

you make it undesireable for them to operate or for people to associate with them.

we're on the right track in some aspects

but we must learn how to streamline our defense department, and put better leadership at the mid to upper level positions who aren't afraid to make decisions, and would rather do whats safe for their careers, etc.

we could do more though, and be better at, our inginuety and our ability to come up with an idea or technology that will give us the clear advantage, and getting that idea or tech. from conception to battlefield deployment. the problem right now is that we are prepared to face the Terminator, but not the guy with sticks and rocks, and the jury-rigged technology that is constantly evolving as a threat over in the middle east to our troops. they arent beating us, but they are able to adapt to threats in real time, where it takes "civilization" alot longer to achieve the same changes, although once the changes take effect, they are generally reasonably effective....but its cyclical, because they have generally already responded to our recent adaptation, case in point the IED threat, which has gone from simply explosives strewn in the road, to shaped charges, aimed and directed which destroy all progress made in procuring up-armored Hum-vees and similar light attack vehicles.

bascially we need to respond to the low tech threat, while at the same time finding a way to continue to fund the R&T that will continue to make our military a more efficient threat and deterrent.

8/5/2005 5:43:38 PM

Declare victory and go home.

8/5/2005 5:54:41 PM

^ and then nuke the entire fucking region. No turrists, no turrism

8/5/2005 5:56:14 PM

Same way we win on many other subjects, DO NOTHING. Not everything requires governmental action. We, the citizens of the west, can win the war all by ourselves. Finish with Iraq and Afganistan, prop up the resultant regimes, and do nothing else. The terrorists lost this "war of civilizations" back in the 16th century.

8/5/2005 6:35:07 PM

Quote :

"How Do We Win The War On Terrorism?"

the same way we win the war on drugs

8/5/2005 6:58:10 PM

damnit

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 7:30 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2005 7:30:16 PM

i partially agree.

what youre dealing with is basically the christian right in the US, minus rule of law. note i didnt say the government, because i think the government as a whole is starting to sell the christian right out piece by piece. but the MOVEMENT itself is atleast slightly comparable. youve got a highly educated leadership, with a very bigoted and uneducated following for the most part. as a result, you get a twisted version of what the religion actually stands for, and even though they arent a majority, they are the loudest or most visible (compare to the way that the ultra-right swarms to republican primaries). therefore, taking out the leadership is a viable strategy,

in our case though, its a little bit different than googling the guys address and showing up at his house...they dont register caves and mudhuts on anywho.com

regardless,

its not like someone will have THE answer in this thread. there are too many unknown variables for our level of discussion,

but i think a good start is becoming more of a reactionary superpower, technology wise...which we are doing little by little. thats how we will win the war

how we will win the cultural struggle is another argument though.

8/5/2005 7:33:53 PM

it would also help if governments around the world could actually hold some power. musharraf and the rest of the pakistani government probably don't even have control over all of the major cities there, let alone all the rural areas.

we need to do more to encourage the centralization of power in a lot of these countries, and do much more humanitarian missions that directly affect the people of a lot of different developing countries, not just the ones we're having problems with, but the ones that NEED the help and we could have problems with in the future.

it's much harder to hate people that are directly helping you, and by help i mean with grain and potable water, not guns.

goddamn i sound like a fucking hippie here.

8/5/2005 7:47:42 PM

absolutely not! In most countries the world over, the problem has been too much power in the central government.

National governments, at least starting out, MUST resign themselves to doing as much as all the regional parties will permit, which happens to be very little in the beginning. The problem is when the national government attempts to impose its will on the logal authority.

I bet, if most national governments actually were limited in power and scope, even the most corrupt war-lord would be willing to conceed that realm. The best negotiated plan is "you swear allegiance to the central authority, and we never tell you to do anything." Only then can government begin "slicing to the left" and begin growing in authority.

8/5/2005 11:44:15 PM

also there is the corruption factor, becuase there is no real recourse to prevent embezzlement or other types of fraud by the elected or nonelected leadership

8/5/2005 11:45:38 PM

Dude. Did you not get the memo?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE WAR ON TERRORISM.

WE ARE ENGAGED IN A STRUGGLE AGAINST EXTREMISM.

8/5/2005 11:46:00 PM

GSAVE

its violent extremism


in other news, no one is really calling it that except the white house.

8/5/2005 11:46:51 PM

Quote :

"you make it undesireable for them to operate or for people to associate with them. "

-packguy381

Yes, but how do we do that?

We're occupying Iraq and Afganistan now and can we say for sure that it is harder for them to operate and associate with people? And even if it is, then how do we continue the offensive when we're stretched so thin militarily? Can we win the war by simply holding our ground in Iraq and Afganistan (and it doesn't even seem like we are)?

And if the answer is expanding our campaign into other countries, then what would the costs of that be? And would those costs be worth it to maintain military bases in Saudi Arabia and our influence in the region? How much are our stakes worth?

I'm personally not a defeatist, but our situation seems quite dire and it's very hard to see where should advance from here.

--

As far as your other points I do think military reform might be needed, but simply improving our technology reaction time wont win this war, imo. We are still strapped for soilders, strapped for cash, and facing very few opportunities to advance against the enemy. For the past two years it seems that we've mostly be defending ourselves against insurgent attacks in Iraq and Afganistan, and defending ourselves nationally against a domestic threat (not very well). You can't win a war by playing defense.

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 2:51 AM. Reason : ``]

8/6/2005 2:47:10 AM

We just Kill the Evil Doers

8/6/2005 8:11:39 AM

It is certainly a mess, I would agree. The key to getting the "w" on this one, isnt one single thing. I don't pretend to have the key, I just notice things, and esp. given my current job, which basically involves me in the entire oversight process of the military, via the Members of Congress that I work indirectly for...so I see alot of room for improvement.

Quote :

"As far as your other points I do think military reform might be needed, but simply improving our technology reaction time wont win this war, imo. "

No, youre right it wouldnt, but it would make achieving our objectives (free standing government) much easier. If you incapacitate the enemy in any capacity which discontinues operations, you have leveraged an advantage on them. They are already operating under such a low technology operation, and the funding they recieve from around the world allows them to basically enjoy a lower cost to enemy killed ratio...that is another aspect, i.e. the funding sources...how do you cut that off? It's not just Osama and oil money, there are plenty of Muslim charities in Europe and even here, that are simply fronts for Al Quada money laundering, its a public fact. One other source of money that bothers me in this situation is the Saudi Royal family...

Extremism in any form is usually not good, and as much as no one wants to make this a religious war, the Wahabism sect of Islam needs to be just as much of a target as Al Quada is, not because we don't respect Islam or the Koran or anything like that, but you're dealing with highly uneducated followers of an extreme religion who are dangerous because they will believe anything their educated and tactically aware leadership will tell them

8/6/2005 8:54:25 AM

8/6/2005 9:22:48 AM

Quote :

"Dude. Did you not get the memo?"

we won the war on terror. we changed its name. get with the program.

8/6/2005 9:20:48 PM