Are We Winning the War?

[EasyEd]

Interesting article in today's Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052904116_pf.html

[Deleted]

As a man much wiser than myself once said, you can't fight a war on terrorism. It's like fighting a war on jealousy.

I'm not opposed to the idea of seeking out and capturing/killing terrorists who would do us harm, but will there ever be a day when there are zero[/u] terrorists on the planet who wish to do us harm? No. And if you can't win a war, you obviously can't be winning a war.

Yes it's mere semantics, but I hate all of this "winning" and "losing" rhetoric from both sides of the asile. Words like that simply do not apply to the situation we find ourselves in. Pro-war folks can talk all they want about "surge" and "gains" and the inability of OBL to recruit like he once did; and anti-war folks can go on and on about civilian casualties, money and the lack of justification for invading a soverign nation...

... because in the end, all it takes is another hijacked plane to get us back to square one.

EDIT: Speaking of good ol' Osama, are we still actually looking for him?

[Boz]

Yes, but you can fight a war on terrorists, and that seems to be doing pretty well. War on terror is catchy and -- ergo -- perfect for Washington, but it is an abstraction in many ways, granted.

People will cite the fact that UBL and AAZ are still at large, and that is a fair point, but their effectiveness is greatly diminished. I think it's made more difficult by the fact that I think they'd really prefer to capture these men, rather than kill them (granting them martyr status among followers).

As for one more hijacked plane taking us back to square one, well, I don't know about everyone else, but for me, I give a lot of credit to the fact that we've gone seven years without that happening in the US. And there have been many notable arrests and interrupted plots, so I don't think it's because they're not really trying (maybe not on a 9-11 scale, which is something that would take many more years to pull off again, I think).

Does that mean that if there is a single additional terrorist attack, then everything since 2001 is for naught? Personally, I don't think so. As Hayden noted, "safe is hard-won, every 24 hours."

Of course, there is the problem that, for AQ, there is no time frame for that ideology. That makes Haydens claim of ideological setbacks for AQ worldwide even more important. I will say, I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that we're "winning" on that front at the moment. I would have liked to hear him speak in more detail on that point.

[Deleted]

May 30, 2008 8:35:43 GMT -5 Boz said:

Yes, but you can fight a war on terrorists, and that seems to be doing pretty well. War on terror is catchy and -- ergo -- perfect for Washington, but it is an abstraction in many ways, granted.

People will cite the fact that UBL and AAZ are still at large, and that is a fair point, but their effectiveness is greatly diminished. I think it's made more difficult by the fact that I think they'd really prefer to capture these men, rather than kill them (granting them martyr status among followers).

As for one more hijacked plane taking us back to square one, well, I don't know about everyone else, but for me, I give a lot of credit to the fact that we've gone seven years without that happening in the US. And there have been many notable arrests and interrupted plots, so I don't think it's because they're not really trying (maybe not on a 9-11 scale, which is something that would take many more years to pull off again, I think).

Does that mean that if there is a single additional terrorist attack, then everything since 2001 is for naught? Personally, I don't think so. As Hayden noted, "safe is hard-won, every 24 hours."

Of course, there is the problem that, for AQ, there is no time frame for that ideology. That makes Haydens claim of ideological setbacks for AQ worldwide even more important. I will say, I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that we're "winning" on that front at the moment. I would have liked to hear him speak in more detail on that point.

Pretty much agree with everything you said, Boz, and I would have gone into that detail explaining my position, but I had things to discuss in the "Lost" thread. I'm sure you'll understand.

My point is merely a semantics one and how people are fixated on "winning" and "losing" this "war" (which itself is an antiquated term in this situation), when by all accounts this is going to be a decades (lifetimes?) long struggle that is going to cost many more lives. I'm just sick and tired of people talking about it in terms of "There it is!!! We've won!!! We killed 'em all!!!"

[jerseyhoya34]

May 30, 2008 7:48:11 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Interesting article in today's Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052904116_pf.html

A couple of thoughts on the question --

1. We are winning the conventional counter-force war. We are killing more of them than they are killing of us. The problem is that it only takes a handful of them to execute a devastating attack, and our counter-force operation and homeland security are not necessarily tailored or well-suited to prevent that in all cases.

2. How many "#2 guys" have we killed in Iraq? Despite our considerable gains, the pool of replacements is still there.

3. The soft power element of a successful war on terror is lacking right now. Our public diplomacy in the Middle East hasn't seemed to affect public opinion to a great degree.

[moe09]

You can give credit for the fact that there haven't been any terrorist attacks on US soil in the past 7 years, but at the same time how many attacks on US soil have there been in the first place? I think this is the case of housewives in Iowa being afraid that Al Qaeda is going to barge through their door any minute. Yet it doesn't happen, it never did happen, and then you can take credit for it by saying it was a result of hard work.

I'm not trying to downplay the effort that is being made to prevent terrorism, it's just how much of it is actually preventing the small bit of terrorism that happened in the US in the first place is tenuous at best. Obviously plots have been interrupted, but the problem, as stated above is that all it takes is one to slip through the cracks. Of course, the probability of an attack in the first place is small, as I noted above, so I guess the only thing to be said is that it's really hard to say.

[hifigator]

Jun 3, 2008 12:33:19 GMT -5 moe09 said:

You can give credit for the fact that there haven't been any terrorist attacks on US soil in the past 7 years, but at the same time how many attacks on US soil have there been in the first place? I think this is the case of housewives in Iowa being afraid that Al Qaeda is going to barge through their door any minute. Yet it doesn't happen, it never did happen, and then you can take credit for it by saying it was a result of hard work.

I'm not trying to downplay the effort that is being made to prevent terrorism, it's just how much of it is actually preventing the small bit of terrorism that happened in the US in the first place is tenuous at best. Obviously plots have been interrupted, but the problem, as stated above is that all it takes is one to slip through the cracks. Of course, the probability of an attack in the first place is small, as I noted above, so I guess the only thing to be said is that it's really hard to say.

I agree to a degree. Someone once said beware of solutions to problems we never knew we had. I think that is akin to your Housewife in Iowa analogy. But during this same 7 year period, there have been major serious terrorist attacks across the globe, vrom France to Spain to Israel to Pakistan to India etc... There have also been prominent notable attacks thwarted here in America, but nary a successful serious attack on the homeland. I think to suggest that those two facts are nothing but a coincidence does a disservice to the hard work of so many brave men and women working to defend this Country here and there.

[EasyEd]

I think there have been no attacks over the last several years against the U.S. interests both at home and abroad. No USS Cole, no US embassies, no Marine barracks, etc. whereas in prior years there had been. Attacks on US interests abroad seem to have been confined to Iraq. I choose to think the Bush policies were an important factor in this, though not the only factor.

[theexorcist]

Jun 3, 2008 14:18:57 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I think there have been no attacks over the last several years against the U.S. interests both at home and abroad. No USS Cole, no US embassies, no Marine barracks, etc. whereas in prior years there had been. Attacks on US interests abroad seem to have been confined to Iraq. I choose to think the Bush policies were an important factor in this, though not the only factor.

For the record...

The US embassy in Athens was attacked last year. A US embassy car in Lebanon was car bombed in January. A US diplomat was killed in Sudan.

[EasyEd]

Jun 3, 2008 14:48:30 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Jun 3, 2008 14:18:57 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I think there have been no attacks over the last several years against the U.S. interests both at home and abroad. No USS Cole, no US embassies, no Marine barracks, etc. whereas in prior years there had been. Attacks on US interests abroad seem to have been confined to Iraq. I choose to think the Bush policies were an important factor in this, though not the only factor.

For the record...

The US embassy in Athens was attacked last year. A US embassy car in Lebanon was car bombed in January. A US diplomat was killed in Sudan.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[The Stig]

The problem is that Al Qaeda isn't one big monolithic group. Osama bin Laden has as much control over radical Islamic terrorism as the Queen of England has over her country. He acts as an inspiration and figurehead for the radical Islamic movement, but his hands-on role is almost nil.

You don't see attacks from Al Qaeda these days. You do see attacks from groups "affiliated with Al Qaeda." A lot of these affiliations are loose at best. Some get money from Al Qaeda, some get training, some get members, but some just take inspiration. The label "Al Qaeda affiliated group" serves all involved. It gives the group itself some credibility, it enhances Al Qaeda's prestige (since you usually only hear about these small groups when they're successful), and it convinces the American and wider Western public that we're facing one big monolithic group in a clear battle between good and evil, which serves the politicians well, since it stirs up fear.

Despite our failure to get Bin Laden, we've done a pretty good job against the core Al Qaeda group. The war in Afghanistan was very successful in that respect. Unfortunately, the threat that they posed has been replaced by these numerous smaller groups, which are springing up faster than we can smack them down. It's a good trade in that these smaller groups are far less capable of carrying out really big attacks (WMD on US soil), but it's a bad trade in that they're almost impossible to defeat. They're like a hydra - you smack one down and two spring up to replace it, partly in response to the extreme measures you took to defeat the first one.

So are we beating Al Qaeda? Yes. Are we beating radical Islamic terrorism? No.

[Deleted]

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

[Jack]

Even when I said it was the bears, I always knew it was the immigrants.

[moe09]

Cam, that's exactly the quote I was thinking of when I was writing my post. In fact, I was going to put it up there, but decided not to.

I'm not saying the hard work that has been put in hasn't changed a lot of things so much as it's just really hard to say what the results have been.

[Boz]

I will never, ever criticize anything ever mentioned on The Simpsons, so I am going to assume that Cam's post was in jest.

To seriously and honestly maintain that point of view is ridiculously and irresponsibly naive, in my opinion.

There is plenty of evidence of tigers, and that our rock does have an effect.

[DrumsGoBang]

Yeah we won! No more terriorism. Money well spent

[hifigator]

Jun 4, 2008 13:39:26 GMT -5 DrumsGoBang said:

Yeah we won! No more terriorism. Money well spent

You are somewhat of a boob.

[DrumsGoBang]

I think the admins of this board have banned people for less then that. That's a personal attack on another poster. Clearly aganist the rules. You are banished HiFi.

America beats terriorism for all time.

[AustinHoya03]

May 30, 2008 8:06:19 GMT -5 buffalohoya said:

EDIT: Speaking of good ol' Osama, are we still actually looking for him?

It would appear so:

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4138791.ece

There's an article in the NYT today on Hamas and its governance of the Gaza Strip, where secularism is on the decline, radicalism is in steady supply, and there's really not much the United States (or any nation) can do about it. There are plenty of similar places throughout the world, including some that are governing themselves with US semi-approval (Pakistan). If we as a nation are truly fighting a "war on terror," we are certainly ignoring many potential fronts in that war.

www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/world/....f322&ei=5087%0A

I also wanted to point out that if the war in Ed's question had referred to America's war in Iraq, Hayden's words certainly have relevance. It is highly likely that we will declare winners and losers in that war at some point in the future, and we have made tangible progress in that conflict in the past year.

[AustinHoya03]

Jun 3, 2008 14:48:30 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

For the record...

The US embassy in Athens was attacked last year. A US embassy car in Lebanon was car bombed in January. A US diplomat was killed in Sudan.

Add the US Consulate in Istanbul today.

www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91QE8980&show_article=1