An Unwinnable War?

[Strider]

For those who hadn't heard about it, our fair President George W. Bush made an appearance on NBC's Today show the other day and reported told host Matt Lauer that, concerning the war on terrorism, it may not be a winnable battle.

The exact quote, for the record:

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way."

Naturally, the Democrats pounced at the opportunity to attack Bush for his seemingly defeatist attitude, while the Republicans have spent the last couple days amending and contrasting that statement with new ones.

Another quote from today, by Bush:

"We meet today at a time of war for our country. A war we did not start, yet one that we will win. In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table, but make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win. We will win by staying on the offensive. We will win by spreading liberty."

Also, the president has labeled the war in Iraq a "catastrophic success". Very choice words, really.

It brings up a very good question, though. Is Bush right when he says the war on terror is a generally lost cause? Discuss.

[Shlup]

I wouldn't say it's a "lost cause." I guess that's a matter of perspective though. I believe that if the war against terror significantly deturs terrorist acts, then it's a winning battle. He's right, we can never truely win, but, I mean, what do people want? No more terrorism anywhere ever? Do we really expect increasing police forces in LA to completely do away with the breaking of all crimes? Uh, well, I mean... that'd be cool. But whatever.

I don't really have a point.

[Casey]

He should've been more articulate on what he said.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...ush.guest.html


Shows what he meant. Oh yeah Rush Limbaugh is right wing nut, and he interviewed Bush so.... yeah... Most of you hate Rush Limbaugh.

[fire_of_avalon]

I think this was obvious from the start, and Bush is trying to appeal to more moderate voters/doves while maintaining his appeal to warhawks.

Rush Limbaugh is a not nice man. I don't like him because he's a crappy journalist.

[escobert]

Well he doesn't like you either Megan I think the wars going good. One day someone tried to compare it to Nam. theres no way this war could have a deathtol high.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I dislike Rush Limbaugh because he's a hate-spewing hypocrite, but I digress.

One can never really win a "war" on terror because fighting terror isn't a "war", it is a vicious battle of guerrilla tactics and countermeasures.

[TheAbominatrix]

Well he doesn't like you either Megan I think the wars going good. One day someone tried to compare it to Nam. theres no way this war could have a deathtol high.

At the beginning of Nam, no one thought there was anyway it could last that long or leave that many dead. We cant say that this will be another Nam though, that's something that has to be decided in retrospect, but should be kept in mind and have everything done to prevent the speculations from coming true. Another reason it's compared to Nam though is from the unrest back home. Nam was the first war that met opposition at home, with severe civil unrest and protest.

I dislike Rush Limbaugh because he's a hate-spewing hypocrite, but I digress.

One can never really win a "war" on terror because fighting terror isn't a "war", it is a vicious battle of guerrilla tactics and countermeasures.

And I agree with all of that.

[Jack]

And how can you fight a war on a verb? You fight places, people or Proper Nouns. NOT verbs.
Also, you have to have "freedom" to have "terror" and you have to have "terror" to have "freedom". Fighting a war on something you need to have to have what you (The USA) desire so greatly is pointless. How do you define "freedom" when you have no "terror".
It makes no sense?

[Shadow Nexus]

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way."

Thats probably the smartest thing I have heard from Bush. However, he does quite the opposite of creating such conditions.

[War Angel]

Is Bush right when he says the war on terror is a generally lost cause?

He did not say that - he said it's not 'winnable' (which brings the argument, no war really is..). That, however, does not mean you just roll over and die. You can bring yourself to a better situation, by putting up a fierce fight. No, the war on terrorism cannot be won.. but you can bring terrorist organisations to their knees, and very much limit their capabilities.

And how can you fight a war on a verb? You fight places, people or Proper Nouns. NOT verbs.

Exactly. There IS no war on 'terrorism', as 'terrorism' is a tool, a weapon, imployed currently by Islamic radicals (yes, me hearties, a massive majority of the world's terror organisations are Islamic), who use terrorism as a tool and a weapon, against the free world.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

Thats probably the smartest thing I have heard from Bush. However, he does quite the opposite of creating such conditions.

Agreed. Hes right and its a shame he took back what he said. He was right and telling the truth for once. Our use of terror to install terror in the terrorists isnt going to stop all of them. There will always be radicals on both sides of the chess board. And we cant win, but we shouldnt stop fighting in fact we cant. We should have someone more trustworthy, or just straight up worthy to lead us in the fight.

[nik0tine]

The war on terror is just as winnable as the war on drugs and that laughable war on cancer.

"war" on this, "war" on that, they are all just creative terms to grab the people's attention. The government doesn't give two trouts about terrorism, all they care about is the middle east. but a "war on the middle east" would be unacceptable. Much like cutting down tree's for no real reason would be unacceptable, so instead they call that a "healthy forest initiative" lmao.

[Rye]

Agreed. Hes right and its a shame he took back what he said. He was right and telling the truth for once.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me. I did catch some of that speech last night, and I thought what he said was mostly bull. Also, at one point he mentioned how the women in households work now too, and how it was so great. Women working is good. Women having to work to help support a household because their husbands aren't making enough money, because they don't have a good stable job due to G.W.B cutting them all is not.

War on terror can't be won. It's not even a war. You can stop some terrorist attacks, but you can't stop them all. And I think G.W.B is going about it all wrong. Like CSZ said, all he's doing is scaring people. I mean, I remember when I first saw that little terror meter thing. That was a horrible idea. His way of preventing terrorist attacks are scaring the crap out of the people so that they won't leave their houses because the terror meter is on orange.

[nik0tine]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me. I did catch some of that speech last night, and I thought what he said was mostly bull. Also, at one point he mentioned how the women in households work now too, and how it was so great. Women working is good. Women having to work to help support a household because their husbands aren't making enough money, because they don't have a good stable job due to G.W.B cutting them all is not.

War on terror can't be won. It's not even a war. You can stop some terrorist attacks, but you can't stop them all. And I think G.W.B is going about it all wrong. Like CSZ said, all he's doing is scaring people. I mean, I remember when I first saw that little terror meter thing. That was a horrible idea. His way of preventing terrorist attacks are scaring the crap out of the people so that they won't leave their houses because the terror meter is on orange.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[The Captain]

To start, from the very beginning the notion that waging war on terrorism could work or would even be a goal made me completely understand that most politicians are not very clear-headed individuals. Terrorism, I believe will forever be a constant so long as their are people on this planet. It's an unfortunate fact of life. People become disgruntled with a group of people or a way of life and decide they must send a message, which is almost always guaranteed to be violent and terrible. They view it as completely justifiable, which is what makes it impossible to win against them or any terrorist to be frank. When someone can justify an action in their head, they are nearly impossible to stop or convince otherwise. Look at the USA: the Bush Administration, instead of admitting that they were wrong to invade Iraq have looked for ways to justify it and once they accomplished that, they moved on.

There's a deeper problem at work here. It's a bigger issue than terrorism, or American Imperialism, or Radical Islam. It's a problem about culture itself and the terrible things that occur when years upon years of misplaced hatred and lies have been put on people. Eventually these lies and hatred become truths and ways of life. It doesn't matter what the cost, but most terrorists are utterly convinced that they are doing something to make a difference, fighting a war for noble reasons and to fix a problem.

To play devil's advocate a moment, imagine that the roles in Iraq had been reversed, that we were considered the threat and that we were invaded (liberated) by another nation. Imagine that we were told all of our customs and ideals were misguided and that we needed to conform to the Islamic principles of life, whether this is stated directly or indirectly. I'd speculate that we'd resist these changes with all our might, which I believe explains exactly why Iraq has been such a chaotic place.

To connect this now to terrorism itself, if we as Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc, etc are so hesitant to change ourselves, why do we believe we can so easily change other cultures? Words and action are great tools, but much of what we're up against in terrorism is deep rooted fundemental beliefs that have been completely planted into the collective subconscious of those we our up against. Call it extreme religious beliefs, call it perverted propaganda to rouse the masses against the Western world, but one cannot underestimate the power it has and wields. Religion is a very, VERY strong rallying cry for people, regardless of what beliefs you have and to attempt to "defeat" the terrorists we face in today's world, we must also be prepared to look within our own cultures. We must be prepared to ask the tough questions about oru own beliefs and see if perhaps we too have become misguided in some small ways and that this too could eventually lead to hatred and evil ideals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no supporting terrorism, nor am I trying to minimize what has been done. I believe tha acts committed by the various terrorist groups of this world are more than terrible, that they show the very worst of human nature and must be contained and if possible conquered in some way. All I am trying to say, I suppose, is that the question and answers are not just black and white, we are not all the good guys and they are not all the villians. There are very wicked people in both camps and all must be weeded out before any real progress can be made.

There are no clear cut answers left, nor are there any easy ways to explain all of what has happened. All that we have now are the problems of this world and a few choices. The choices that will be made in the coming months are among the most crucial to any chance of a resolution for the conflicts our world faces. I firmly believe that terrorism is an issue that won't easily be forgotten, like the drug war or cancer problems, and that if it is approached the right way, with the entire world attempting to end the hatred and violence as one voice, that this problem can be squashed very effectively. As citizens of the world, it should be our duty to ensure that hatred and false beliefs do not spread throughout this planet. To allow new generations of people to be corrupted, to become racism or sexist, to become an extremist, or prejudiced will only hinder any hope we have left of living in a peaceful world.

We must all attempt, through eyes open wide to difference, hearts and minds open to tolerance and compassion, to connect with one another as people, and not allow ourselves to become broken apart. There is no one culture to blame for our current plight, though some have played larger roles than others, but rather, it is the fault of all for allowing such hate to pass without being checked. We must no longer allow Radicals, be they from Christianity or Islam or whatever, dictate how life should be, and allow justification of deeds that are wrong. We must do this together or we doom ourselves for all eternity.

Take care all.