The war in Afghanistan and (to some) the war in Iraq have been dubbed part of the on-going "War on Terror". But is it feasible to fight a "War on Terrorism"? Isn't terrorism after all just an idea? It seems to me that to declare a war on terror is to try to fight an idea or an abstract concept (comparable to declaring war on love or happiness); and what defines terror? The words "terror" and "evil" have been thrown around to excess in the past two years, but what sort of solid definition for these have been given? Doesn't it seem that the word "terror" is a little ambiguous? What's to stop the administration from using "terror" as a reason to fight a future war on, say, peaceniks (I know it'll never happen, but it's solely for rhetorical purposes; I'm in no way suggesting that it's the intent of the administration)? I think that if we truly think that we are going to eradicate the idea of terror then we have another thing coming. If we move to eliminate all "terror" then we will not only have to eliminate all fundamentalists (including the domestic terrorists like the people who kill abortion doctors) but the moderates who convert to terrorism when they see their brethren killed. I think that a "War on Terror" isn't a feasible or even a tenable objective. Perhaps "War on Al-Qaeda" would be more appropriate. Please note that I am aware that the "War on Terror" has only been used thus far against Al-Qaeda, but we are more concerned with the future uses of the "War on Terror" as a pretense and the ambiguity of the term.

MY QUESTION TO YOU:
Is the total eradication of terrorism a feasible objective, and is the term "War on Terror" too vague?

A war on Terror is unwinnable. It translates to Perpetual WAR. While of interest to some government officials and their interests, it is unrealistic and the creation of new generations of terrorists are inevitable on the loss of their family and community members by the overtaking and threatening by outside forces, what is seen as soveriegn and sacred to ones beliefs and territory. That is how we are going about it now. Besides that, the confronting countries cannot possibly sustain the conflict for long without impoverishing the population:

From Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, The most comprehensive book ever written on war strategy:


And on to:


http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar.htm
http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

There is much more, worth a read.

Our take on the war on terrorism, as 'being able to be defeated by our armies' comes from the most faulty idealogues with no experience in the field. . We desire to make war on nation states in what would really be to 'contain', not eliminate terrorism by overt aggression and new invasions. These invasions are self/government interested, since we can never win or be in the least successful against terrorists, nor internally sustain conflict at the levels being proposed without giantesque sacrifices in lives, money and precious resources, much more than the threat demmands.
A new thought process is not only prudent but necessary and CAN work. Much like dependancy on foreign oil, we must reduce our dependancy on wars to solve our problems, they are almost one in the same at this point in time.

We have in contrast, The Art of Peace:

Morihei Ueshiba (1883-1969) was history's greatest martial artist. He was the founder of Aikido, which can be translated as "The Art of Peace." Morihei Ueshiba is referred to by the practitioners of Aikido as O-Sensei, "The Great Teacher". The following quotations have been compiled from O-Sensei's collected talks, poems, and calligraphy, and from oral tradition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Understand that this man created Aikido. He was not a believer that there were not evil forces in the world, he was not a pacifist, he simply thought that if we believed in another way, than that way could become the way of the majority, thereby naturally overtaking a force to be reckonned with: the violent and war oriented. A different paradigm for humans to live by.

I have always been looking for a new paradigm because the one we are doing IS NOT WORKING and hasnt been for some time. IF we could only START to think of new ways of living together, we may be able to save ourselves from ultimate extinction, not because of the population but by destruction of our enviroment and resources in contiunual wars with only circular conditions and no permanent solutions.
Each one of us can decide, I believe that concentrating on peaceable solutions could change the entire value of our human existance and make our lives , ALL of our lives better. This is a long reach as my life goes here and now, truely disappointing, as some believe that peace is appeasement. There are many roads between appeasment and war, yet none are ever examined in our one way or another viewpoint. There IS a better way, I know there is. We just need to stop relating to each other in the same (unproductive) ways.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended...and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people..."

James Madison, Fourth President of the United States, 1795

Amen.

Oh absolutely not! Terrorism is a classification of action not an idea. One who commits terrorism is, of course acting out, a tactic. A "War on Terrorism" is not less feasible on tenable than a war on murder or cooperate corruption.

The reason that the fight against terrorism is characterized in a war is that is has include military and other violent action.


"Terror" is in this case a short for terrorism, more punchy and emotional. A rhetorical exercise to be expected in a modern democracy. :shrug:

If they insist on the targeted murder of civilians in order to achieve their ends then yes death or imprisonment is the goal...

I think there is little to worry about. If governments want a pretense to pursue irrational action, well then they will make one. Shortening terrorism to "terror" for better speeches doesn't seem to fit into this category...


Or at least indefinite... that is the nature of war against criminal acts as well. It is certainly no reason to stop fighting.

Why would you say that? Perhaps if terrorist group are overwhelmingly popular but they are not. Even the Muslim world realizes they are murders. Therefore the numbers of terrorist are not infinite and sufficient pressure (military, economic, etc.) could (and will) make substantial headway against their capabilities. The death, imprisonment, and impoverishment of terrorists can delegate terrorist to a minor threat like it can with organized crime. It can't stop it all, but it can make things difficult.

I think that invalidating the War on Terror as a war against an idea is simply a fallacious rhetorical exercise.

Lets be clear, the "War on Terror" is not in any way an actual war on terror, it is in fact a war against a specific subset of islamic terrorism dircted against the West.

Were it a war on terror, I would expect members of the KKK to be rounded up, measures taken to stop the huge flow of funds from the US to the IRA, US action against rebel movements in Egypt, France, Spain, Brazil, etc.


With that in mind, this specific war on this specific terror is certainly feasable, all that is needed is to kill Bin laden and a few more of his associates, break up any existing cells and confiscate Bin Laden's funds, and voila, Al Qaeda will all but dry up.

Of course, in its place a half dozen other organisations will spring up, or existing organisations (some funded by the US) will turn militant, and so on, and so on...


Islamic fundamentalist hatred of the west and in particular the US cannot be solved by bullets, so there will always be A war on terror somewhere...

I agree with this statement but likely not the conclusion. A war on murder or corruption is not winnable. Aside from a very utopian view of human perfectionism, these things come with human societies.

"wars" against these things, like terrorism, are not winnable. If it is winnable it would have to be one through a shift in societal or cultural values, but once again that seems pie-in-the-sky utopian to me.

Our "war" on terrorism is like a war on crime, murder, drugs, or corruption. It could lead to improvements in the amount of terrorism, but it is difficult to conceive or an eradication of all acts of terror in the world. In this way, I agree it is set up to be a perpetual war until it is declared to be stopped.

I'll certainly grant you that. I'm not trying to make the point that we should in any way stop fighting the War on Terror, but instead just trying to show the ambiguous and overly broad nature of the term. The question was not whether or not we should be fighting terrorism in the first place, but if the total eradication of terror is a feasible objective and if the term "War on Terror" is too vague.



Exactly. As Vermillion noted, "War on Terror" is somewhat of a misnomer; that we aren't fighting terrorism in and of itself, but more specifically Al-Qaeda. A War on Al-Qaeda is quite feasible and has a foreseeable end; however it is noted that, as a result of eliminating Al-Qaeda, more terrorist groups will spring up in its place. Hence we move into this sort of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" (thanks, Gore Vidal) where, as we destroy these organizations, we embolden others to take up arms against us and must therefore eliminate them. And it continues ad infinitum. Ahh, but there is an end in sight here, as turnea points out:



A good point. And if we persist in eliminating Al-Qaeda and destroying the other groups which spring from that, we may eventually see an end to this terror. Given that we have concluded it will not, in fact, be perpetual, how long will it last? I revert back to my original argument that even the moderates who would never dream of becoming terrorists will turn to terrorism when they feel significantly threatened or are bereft by the loss of a loved one. This sort of chain reaction leads to us not only fighting Al-Qaeda but every other group which springs from that- until their supplies or will power are completely exhausted. Don't get me wrong, I think we should be fighting terrorism and bringing to justice the people who have wronged us. But I do want to question the feasibility of it. It is possible to put an end to most terrorism (I highly doubt that we could end all terror), but how long will that take? Certainly, it is a goal we should pursue diligently since we can put a significant dent into the power of terrorists, but is it feasible? I realize that it's tenable- we have to protect ourselves. But how feasible is it really?



Certainly shortening terrorism to terror doesn't fit into that category, but I maintain that the term "War on Terror" is overly broad and can be used as a pretense for almost anything (since terrorism exists almost anywhere). There may be little to worry about, but I'm concerned more or less with the vagueness of the term "War on Terror".



Yes, you're right; terrorism is an action and I'll concede that. And you're right, the "War on Terror" isn't any less feasible than fighting murder, drugs, rape, etc. (but is there really a foreseeable end to any of those, either?).

To Summarize:
"War on Terror" still seems to me to be a bit overly broad. I believe that, in order to continue fighting Al-Qaeda and all the groups which will spring from the destruction of Al-Qaeda, we will be fighting for such a long period of time that it almost seems to lose its feasibility. But it should be noted that I feel that the War on Terror is a fight that is most certainly worth fighting and even if we are unable to achieve the end, we can at least feel that we have made tangible progress.

If that's the case, then are we not in an active war with the Palestinians?

They are active and exporting their terror. Why are we not sending troops there if it's a war against what they do?

Nobody else exports as much terror as the Pals, so they should be first on the list if what you say is true.

Is the "War on Terror" feasible or tenable?, Is "War on Terror" a misnomer?

"I think that if we truly think that we are going to eradicate the idea of terror then we have another thing coming."

The War on Terror is no more abstract then the War on Facism waged in the 1940s or the War on Communism waged for the next five decades. The first cost millions of lives and billions of dollars. The second hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

Of course we called those wars by different names. Perhaps if we call 'the War on Terror" the Third World War it would less abstract to those who cannot see the new paradigm of WAR in the 21st Century.

Just as Facism and Communisim are still around, I believe there will be terrorism far into our future. What the WOT is doing is reducing the power of international terrorism. World wide, it is being fought on many fronts: Law enforcement, Financial, Intelligence, military; all have a part in the WOT. So is the War in Iraq a part in the WOT. If we can succeed in bringing freedom to the Iraqi people then the first step in the erradication of the Mid East breeding grounds of terrorism will have been taken.

For Americans the real hopes for the WOT is to first prepare and guard the nation against further attacks. Secondly, to reduce terrorists ability to attack international targets at will, using the combined efforts of many nations in the forgoing areas of Law enforcement, finance, etc.

There will always be terrorists. However, finding them, taking pre-emptive measures against them, denying them the national, financial, and individual support they thrive on, will reduce this threat so that people across the globe can live day to day without fear of attack.

1SG

Of course it is.

The war on Fascism was waged against all facist states (except Spain). The war on Communism was waged against all Communist states. Both of those are ideologies the rest of the world opposed.

Terrorism is not an ideology, it is a set of actions open to interpretation. Terrorism is going on all over the world and the US cares not a whit. In the recent and moderate past the US has been either the sponsor or the direct actor behind terrorism.

This is a war against Al Qaeda, a specific subset of islamic fundamentalism, and its use of terror. It is not even a war against ISLAMIC terrorism, as the US has not interfered or offered any comment at all in cases of Islamic terorism in Rusia, Kashmir, Indonesia, China, Algeria, Egypt and so on.


Calling this the 'war on terror' is like calling the second world war a 'war against non-democracies'. Yes, its true the selected targets were not democracies, but so were many of the allies the US sided with in that war.

One of the primary sponsors of terrorism in the entire Middle east region is Saudi Arabia, also a non-democratic, totalitarian regime. As long as the Us continues to sell aircraft and tanks to the House of saud, this is most certainly not a war on terror in the strictest sense.


Oh, and calling it the third world war, which I dealt with in another thread, is simply laughable.

What I find laughable is why this is even an issue for people. I may be alone, but it is the purpose of the war on terror that is paramount, not the semantics.
I don't care if they call it the crusade against Islamoterrorists, because I simply don't care if it offends and hurts the feelings of Islamoterrorists.

Those who will seek to wage war on women and children must be eradicated like vermin. Some sensitive types will, I'm sure find that sentiment unsettling and simplistic, but it is my opinion that they cannot be bargained with, catered to, or appeased. One cannot reason with animals.

Thus the 'war on terror' has to be feasible, there simply is no other alternative.

But the question was not whether or not it should be feasible. It's whether or not it is feasible. A lot of things have to be, but they aren't necessarily so. Do you think that fighting against terrorism (in the sense that it's used) is feasible? Semantics make the difference between fighting people who want to kill us and getting involved with the IRA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. - it may seem to you to be a big logical leap to make, but that is the issue in question. How do we know that the "War on Terror" isn't going to be used as a pretense to go in where we have no place? And what of the issue of spawning new terrorists?

Interesting sentiment, I hope it is not just hollow words.

because if you mean it, then I assume you believe in cutting off funding to Israel? I assume you will be moving against Pakistan, Turkey, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries who's policies or actions have targeted women and children either of their political opponents, or of rebels and insurgents, or of their own people because they do not value the lives of women?


I think you will find that most people do not have a huge problem with the rhetoric of the united states, but rather with the selective application of this rhetoric.

By waging war, I am speaking of those who intentionally target women and children, so the reference to Israel is not compatible. As for the other countries you listed, I have no love for them, but I do not connect the dots from undervaluing women in Islamic society with killing them wholesale.

Yeah, it's a misnomer. Terror in general is too broad and nebulous. It should be recast as a war against Islamofascism. Since that's a reactionary movenment taht wants to literally destroy western civilization, it really is a war of civilization vs. barbarism.

Is the total eradication of terrorism a feasible objective, and is the term "War on Terror" too vague?

It makes a good soundbite, like the war on drugs. A war on terrorism isn’t ‘winnable’ in the strictest sense, but there are certainly ways to pick battles carefully, and concentrate limited resources against a main threat. That would be to use intelligence and diplomacy...and carry a big stick to target the governments which support terrorism against us. We did this in Afghanistan, and many previous state sponsors became much more helpful.

IMO, it’s pretty obvious that nation-building is a bad idea and a waste of resources. Members of the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) fought along-side Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, even though we supported and defended them just five short years ago, and spent a vast amount of time and money (along with many Western countries) “building”. Bosnia is much the same. If anything, our intervention creates incentives and targets for attack. This is nothing new to Iraq…we learned it as far back as Lebanon in the early 80s, and after that Somalia.

Vermillian, the Saudi government supports terrorists? I was always under the impression that the terrorists came from the Asir region, a radical and anti-house-of-Saud area, where tribal loyalties are strong. There are terrorist networks in Milan, but I wouldn’t call Italy a terrorist state. Please explain your reasoning.

I think I would tend to disagree with this statement. If you look at the culture of countries where terrorism is rampant, it IS in fact an ideology. In fact, it is often an all-consuming one, superceding everything else. That is what we are battling against--removing it as an ideology.

We arent really fighting all terrrorism, just the international flavor that bothers us from time to time. Its like having a War_on_Piracy, you dont worry about individual deck hands so much as the safe havens and the captains who command the raids.

Can it really succeed? In any absolute sense of course not but you can cull the animals numbers and at least make it difficult for them to strike.

After all of the books and articles, congressional hearings and the bi-weekly recordings from "Al Queda". I am going to say something probably more radical than I ought, but here it goes:

I have come to wonder if Osama bin Laden exists. Maybe he DID exist, and died, but I am beginning to wonder about everthing I hear because I keep hearing about this war on terrorism but underneath it all there seems to be an awful lot of oil.

In 1999 a professor of Law and a scholar of social conflict told my night class that if we wanted to know where the next war would be, it would be in this region (he showed us all the map of the Afghanistan/Uzbekestan/Turkmenistan region). He explained that the world was running out of oil (or at least many people think so), and that the region was very unstable. The region would have to be stabalized in order to build and protect the pipeline. The pipeline would have to go from the Caspian Sea and through Afghanistan. The students all thought he was a crazy conspiracy theorist, but he turned out to be correct.

Then with all of the "reasons" given for going to Iraq, it turns out that Iraq may have more oil than even Saudi Arabia. The current adminstration said we had to go there for WMD, and for the war on terror. When that didn't turn out so good it was supposed to be to liberate Iraq. What's going on in Iraq though, seems to be less peace making, and more of an attempt at pacification that isn't working. The only ministry building we protected was the Ministry of oil, and we protected the oil pipelines and let everything else burn. Our primary mission in Iraq now seems to be to get the oil into our hands and prop up a stable government that will be friendly toward the US.

I guess when professors turn out to be prophets and not flakes, and when you find out your government is, at the very least, misleading the public, you become suspicious.

Now whenever I hear one of those OBL statements I think of Orwell and his fictional Goldstein character. We are all united in hate against a man we can't find, can't even listen to a correct interpretation of, and we are told that "the terrorists hate us, because they hate freedom". Whatever else may be true, I doubt that is the reason they hate us, if there is a cohesive THEY at all.

We can't fight a war on a fiction. Not that 9/11 didn't happen, and not that people haven't been blowing things up all over the world. But, maybe that has been going on around the world for years, and 9/11 was the first major attack on the US. Maybe it serves someone's interests to see to it that the terrorist network idea continues to be the focus of the country. We point to groups all over the world and say it was "Al Queda". Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we are just noticing these things and attributing them to a cohesive network, or maybe we have a self fulfulling prophesy going that made Al Queda immitators. Just maybe there are no more terrorists now than there were before 9/11, but we never heard about those attacks before, or if we did, we didn't see them through the same prism.