NationStates Jolt Archive

Are we really winning the "war on terror"?

I think this person puts it best...

I'm here to remind people that the best way to fight terrorism is to not let terrorism intimidate America. -- President George W. Bush, Sept. 17, 2001

Take off your partisan hat for a moment. Leave politics at the door. Conservatives, liberals, and moderates who are reading this blog, I ask you, nearly five years after the September 11th attacks, how can we say we are winning the war on terror? How can we declare success when we have allowed terror to so greatly redefine American society?

I've had my share of heated debates with conservatives who claim we are winning the war on terror because we haven't been attacked since 9/11. But only those with a myopic view of the conflict can make such a claim. Limiting the definition of success solely to the physical safety of Americans fails to take into account that the goal of al Qaeda is not merely to cause death, but to cause a destruction of the very thing that defines us as Americans: our freedom.

As the President said the day the towers fell, "our way of life, our very freedom" was attacked. And how have we responded in the past five years? Not by preserving our way of life, not by zealously gaurding our freedom, but by surrendering.

We have surrendered the idea of a limited government. We have surrendered the spirit, if not the letter, of the First and Fourth Amendments. We have surrendered our position in the world as the beacon of human rights. We have surrendered the bedrock principle that in time of chaos, the rule of law is paramount.

We have been intimidated. Intimidated into acting out in the most unAmerican manner.

This is post-9/11 America: a nation that asserts the unquestionable authority to torture detainees, to launch a pre-emptive war, to keep humans locked up for years without trial, to force citizens to exercise their First Amendment rights in "free speech zones" the size of postage stamps, to ignore 750 laws, to ignore the civil liberty protections enacted in the wake of Watergate, to conduct surveillance on Americans without a warrant, to eternally preserve a record of every domestic call, to pry into the privacy of a free press, and to gag the mouths of whistleblowers with threats of reprisal.

But we haven't been attacked again, right? Despite all of these attacks against American identity from within?

The terrorists' most dangerous weapon isn't anthrax or planes or dirty bombs; it's fear. Fear is their most destructive weapon because it operates in a stealth manner. Fear is what has caused our government to turn on its citizens and brag that it does so out of courage in the fight against evil. And in that sense, by goading the greatest democracy on earth to view 300 million citizens as the potential enemy, fear has proved to be the most effective weapon of mass destruction of all.

So please explain to me, my fellow Americans who are so quick to support the latest derogation of American freedom, how exactly are we winning the war on terror? How does giving up the very freedoms terrorists seek to destroy equal victory? And how do we ever apologize to future generations for the America we bequeath to them, an anemic America thirsting for freedoms long ago surrendered...a nation sculpted by the hands of terrorism into a cowering shell of its former self?

damn right

EDIT: I just don't agree to the fact the US is/are the greatest democracy on earth

If only it were just the Americans caving in.

Not to worry, it's a war that cannot be won anyway.

On second thought: Worry :(

In terms of body count, the terrorists are insignificant. A few thousand people in over 4 years, even if you count American deaths in Iraq as "terrorist casualties", is very small. The fear factor is way out of proportion to the actual deaths.

damn right

EDIT: I just don't agree to the fact the US is/are the greatest democracy on earth
Come on now. 8 out of 10 Americans agree that we are.

Sorry, but isn't being "the greatest democracy on Earth" akin to being the valedictorian at summer school?

What kind of democracy allows itself to enforce democracy elsewhere through military action? The US did not get its democracy through the armed intervention of a foreign power. We got it as -- get this -- insurgents against a foreign power (or at least a power which, through time and mismanagement, had become foreign). How completely disingenuous and borderline hypocritical is it for the US to impose democracy where it's never been through force of arms?

There are plenty of things to love about my country, but there are many things to question, and a few to outright detest.

We can't win a war when we don't know the definition of what the war is and have no definition for success.

We also can't win a war when the people responsible for running it are stupid.

The War on Terror is a bullshit idea used to keep people scared enough so that the government can curb their freedoms and liberties, and can pursuade the people to allow them to go off invading middle-eastern countries without a consistent reason.

We can't win a war when we don't know the definition of what the war is and have no definition for success.

We also can't win a war when the people responsible for running it are stupid.
You could well be talking about the "War on Drugs" there. Anyone remember that from the 80s?
What happened there? It quietly faded away when the powers-that-be finally realised that having no identifiable enemy, no clear goals and no strategy just meant spending (=wasting) billions with no real outcome.
Sound familiar?

You could well be talking about the "War on Drugs" there. Anyone remember that from the 80s?
What happened there? It quietly faded away when the powers-that-be finally realised that having no identifiable enemy, no clear goals and no strategy just meant spending (=wasting) billions with no real outcome.
Sound familiar?
Are you kidding? That war is still ongoing, and we're still dumping billions into it all the time. It's not front page anymore because terrorists scare people far more effectively than eggs in frying pans ever did, but it's still going on.

Are you kidding? That war is still ongoing, and we're still dumping billions into it all the time. It's not front page anymore because terrorists scare people far more effectively than eggs in frying pans ever did, but it's still going on.
This is your brain.
This is yoru brain on terrorism.
This is your brain on terrorism with a side of bacon and hash browns.

Are we really winning the "war on terror"?

I think this person puts it best...
That post raises several good points.

Of course, the entire idea of a "war on terror" is bullshit, and always has been. "Terror" is a feeling. People will always be terrified of something, and going to war against things that terrify us is probably not going to ever solve a single thing. Unless you decide that we need to "solve" the "problem" of there not being enough rich oil tycoons or arms merchants in the world.

We can't win a war when we don't know the definition of what the war is and have no definition for success.

We also can't win a war when the people responsible for running it are stupid.

Thanks. Now I need to find the Windex. There's chocolate on my monitor. :D

Thanks. Now I need to find the Windex. There's chocolate on my monitor. :D
Are you saying you shot chocolate milk out of your nose?

I'm not entirely sure one can lose a war where one can't really properly identify the enemy or the aims of said conflict.

A rousing speech by georgia10 and one I'd like to be able to endorse, but sadly it is a myopic view itself, because terrorism is only one aspect of a global situation with many facets. As ever, the most important of these to consider, when attempting to understand people and their actions, is economic. The age old question: who benefits?

The USA is labouring under a Trade Deficit of $650 Billion. Much of that is a result of foreign oil imports, which since 2000 have exceeded half as the source of all domestic petroleum products. Despite this worrying figure, US domestic industry is in such poor shape that CAFE law, which would require US vehicles to achieve a fuel efficiency only half that of similar European models has been suspended at least three years running. The domestic economy appears to be in boom, however this is only on the back of consumer credit, which itself has expanded in response to US Federal Grants to first-time and low-income buyers of homes, in the same time period. Ironically, because domestic production of consumer goods cannot keep pace with foreign imports, this is further exacerbating the Trade Deficit. This situation is analagous to that of the UK under Thatcher, which resulted in the UK Stock Market Crash known as 'Black Wednesday'.

Add to this the fact that the $US is already artificially boosted in value on international money markets because it is the currency OPEC chose to trade oil in, but that many countries have been switching their foreign currency holdings to the €uro (Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela) and the picture looks even bleaker for the $US. Enter China. A single market of 1.4 Billion people with a growing need for energy, which, since the completion of a massive pipeline right through the middle east and Uzbekistan, can now buy their energy in €uros direct from Iran and we see the reason why Dubya has been so keen to pound Iran as far into the desert as he was with Iraq, because the $US is losing world relevance all the time and the domestic economy is unable to compete to boost the $US' value. Remember also that, at some point, China will float its currency on the international markets.

Factor in the macro-economic 'wave theory' of Kondratiev et al. which predicts a cyclical slump in the market anytime soon, as a periodic reaction to lack of investment in infrastructure, amongst other things, and we see a very stark picture indeed. Much of the wealth of individuals and nations is held in $US investments. The $US is going down and will plummet eventually. World recession at least as bad as the thirtees will follow.

Add to this that whether "Peak Oil" has been reached or not, it is not far off and that current western food production methods use 2000 calories input to 1 calorie output and things take on a far more scary potentiality.

The US took a gamble with Iraq, to the tune so far of approaching $300 Billion: that they could keep the market ticking along and get into Iran, thus consolidating middle-eastern oil under the $US. That has not worked out. But ask yourself, what else would it be necessary for a government to have in-place to prepare for the most widespread civil disturbance we've ever seen? ;)

Isn't India the "greatest deomcracy on Earth"?

President Bush has probably done more to undermine the freedom of Americans than Bin Laden.

At least the jury managed not to make a marytr out of Z-whatzizname

HELLO without FRENCH (ie foreign) military aid we would have had no indipendence! The political pendulum has had a push and there was a knee jerk reaction if it doesn't start back in the right direction we need to give it a push. The article raises some good points and some asinine ones too.

Sorry, but isn't being "the greatest democracy on Earth" akin to being the valedictorian at summer school?

What kind of democracy allows itself to enforce democracy elsewhere through military action? The US did not get its democracy through the armed intervention of a foreign power. We got it as -- get this -- insurgents against a foreign power (or at least a power which, through time and mismanagement, had become foreign). How completely disingenuous and borderline hypocritical is it for the US to impose democracy where it's never been through force of arms?

There are plenty of things to love about my country, but there are many things to question, and a few to outright detest.

Are you saying you shot chocolate milk out of your nose?

Pretty much. :D

I'm sorry but insurgencies take no less than a decade to defeat, the model counterinsergincy done by the Brits took a decade, before you can say its not working, you need to wait a reasonable amount of time.

Sorry, but isn't being "the greatest democracy on Earth" akin to being the valedictorian at summer school?

What kind of democracy allows itself to enforce democracy elsewhere through military action? The US did not get its democracy through the armed intervention of a foreign power. We got it as -- get this -- insurgents against a foreign power (or at least a power which, through time and mismanagement, had become foreign). How completely disingenuous and borderline hypocritical is it for the US to impose democracy where it's never been through force of arms?

There are plenty of things to love about my country, but there are many things to question, and a few to outright detest.
...so we as a democratic state have a responsibility to let millions suffer under totalitarian regimes until one of the many revolts (which mostly consist of free thinkers being dragged out and shot or them and their families gassed of course) manage to bring change and might survive the evils of man when a chance to grab power in a time of unrest by creating a street gang. Your way would work awesome, like it has in recent history.

I'm sorry but insurgencies take no less than a decade to defeat, the model counterinsergincy done by the Brits took a decade, before you can say its not working, you need to wait a reasonable amount of time.

You are sooooo far off base. This isn't about insurgencies, this is about our government allowing "the evil doers" to win. The more frightened we become of them, the more we allow ourselves to be kept under an oppressive government thumb. All they have to say is a bunch of windbaggy crap about "protecting us", and "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." The second you stop being afraid they will lose their hold, and they can't have that...

So the correct responce in your mind is to igore it and it will go away?? What would your responce to 9/11 have been.



You are sooooo far off base. This isn't about insurgencies, this is about our government allowing "the evil doers" to win. The more frightened we become of them, the more we allow ourselves to be kept under an oppressive government thumb. All they have to say is a bunch of windbaggy crap about "protecting us", and "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." The second you stop being afraid they will lose their hold, and they can't have that...

Were doing great.

If guys have enough time to make Ramadi spoof rap videos, things are not very hot.


Next stop is Iran....better consult a map.

This is your brain.
This is yoru brain on terrorism.
This is your brain on terrorism with a side of bacon and hash browns.
Damn it now I am hungry for terrorism

Ever time I eat a terrorist I'm hungry again an hour later.

And their not Kosher or Halal :mad:

Damn it now I am hungry for terrorism

The war on terror cannot be won with weapons. It cannot be won with even more terror, by terrorizing people from outside countries. It cannot be won by spying on people and crushing their freedom. It cannot be won by using torture or putting people in jail with no trial. All that will just increase terror and fulfill the terrorists goals.

The war on terror can be win by fighting against poverty. By stopping to support dictators who are nice to us. By stopping to try to conquer and rule on the world.

Less than one forth of US spend on Irak could have granted every human being on the planet with clean water. Would people be that eager to blow themselves to hurt the country who provided clean water to the world ?

The war on terror cannot be won with weapons. It cannot be won with even more terror, by terrorizing people from outside countries. It cannot be won by spying on people and crushing their freedom. It cannot be won by using torture or putting people in jail with no trial. All that will just increase terror and fulfill the terrorists goals.

The war on terror can be win by fighting against poverty. By stopping to support dictators who are nice to us. By stopping to try to conquer and rule on the world.

Less than one forth of US spend on Irak could have granted every human being on the planet with clean water. Would people be that eager to blow themselves to hurt the country who provided clean water to the world ?

And they'd turn around and piss on us.

...so we as a democratic state have a responsibility to let millions suffer under totalitarian regimes until one of the many revolts (which mostly consist of free thinkers being dragged out and shot or them and their families gassed of course) manage to bring change and might survive the evils of man when a chance to grab power in a time of unrest by creating a street gang. Your way would work awesome, like it has in recent history.

But the US has been sponsoring "free thinker" culls for decades...and you know how annoyed they get when people free think the wrong thing.

Next stop is Iran....better consult a map.Not unless you're prepared to go to war with China. Let's face it, there probably are many in the current US administration who are, but thankfully for the rest of the world and sanity, the US cannot afford it. They actually cannot even afford war in Iran, which is why they've been talking up a 'nuclear threat'. Because the only feasable way of achieving a military victory, before the $'s run out, in Iran, would be to use nuclear weapons themselves, 'justified' by the sham 'threat'.

But Turkey are no longer onside, which would mean an air-war would have to be primarily carrier-launched from the Med, which is a little unfeasable. Where else? Iraq? Front-line and likely to be over-run by Iranian land forces, especially if backed by the enormous modern Syrian tank army. A significant factor when considering Israel as a base for air strikes also, because in any conflict between Moslem nations and Israel, any US forces in-theatre would find themselves surrounded by hostile elements.

Much of this is however irrelevant, because the US would not commit enough ground forces to Viet Nam to win, for fear of provoking full scale war with China, so why would we believe they would dare threaten China's energy needs now? Quite rightly too: 300 Million vs. 1.4 Billion, it's not hard to guess who would win, eh?

BTW, although India is the largest democracy with a population of around 1.1 Billion, upto 40% of Indians are below the age of 15 years, so the EU with 900 Million has the largest electorate. Which, incidentally, makes Wolfgang Schüssel the current "leader of the free world".

So the correct responce in your mind is to igore it and it will go away?? What would your responce to 9/11 have been.

My response (it's not spelled with a C) would have been to get the right people, like say Osama Bin Laden, who, just in case you've been living in a cave too, is still at large. After capturing and prosecuting the proper people I would have used the wellspring of good will the world had been showing us to advance the notion that the first world has a responsability to bring the rest of the planet into the modern era. You know, that whole "winning hearts and minds" thing that we should have been doing in the first place.