[ Closed ] Who is winning the war on terrorism?

A seemingly simple question proposed to my political science class this afternoon.  It led to an interesting and largely off topic discussion on what terrorism really was, whether it could be beaten and who's objectives were what and who was accomplishing them and faster.

Defining Terrorism:

Most people agreed terrorism wasn't just some abstract form of evil, that it had a more specific definition.  That definition was pretty much the use of fear for political purposes, especially in the case of inflicting mass casualties.  To that end, it is not hard to imagine the goals of would be terrorists.

One guy kept insisting that all forms of evil could technically be terrorism, and that terrorism was the root of all evil itself.  He was a dumbass, needless to say.

Defeating Terrorism:

Most people seemed to articulate at first that they believed terrorism, terrorists and others could and would be defeated.  One not so intelligent female said terrorism was already defeated since we got Saddam.  They were mostly Republicans, if I had to guess.

My personal position was that terrorism as an idea cannot be defeated: for two reasons.  First and primarily is that it cannot be fought.  You cannot declare war on an idea.  You cannot win a war on an idea.  Secondly and perhaps more importantly is that by fighting terrorism, you invigorate the enemy.  When we invade a country, for example, we make the residents angry and the terrorists get new propaganda.  Same goes for killing a terrorist, on a smaller scale.  More will replace him.

Theoretically we could topple every government in the Middle East in a few years, maybe a decade give or take.  But ultimately that doesn't stop terrorism.  It might make matters worse and potentially destabilize the region further which would lead to more anarchy and chaos. 

Military force alone cannot stop terrorism, it is literally impossible.  As the old media cliche goes, this is a battle for hearts and minds.  We could invade and still try to do that, as we did in Iraq.  If I had to guess, I'd say we are losing that battle by a lot.  Or we can push for reforms in the culture itself.  This is more realistic and doesn't involve a toppling of governments for no good reason.

If we are going to conduct a war on terrorism, it should be far more focused and have a less militarial emphasis.  The focus comes on not just invading a random country pre-emptively based off of imaginary weapons and terrorist alliances that didn't ever exist, for instance.  Or toppling any government that gets in our way.  You use the military as a last resort and only against the terrorists themselves.

The war itself is fought on the fronts of diplomacy, intelligence gathering and covert action.  It is also a legal battle.  To this end, I think Clinton had us down the right path as far as prosecuting terrorists rather than killing anything that we don't like and calling it a terrorist.  I suppose in short, we need to stop telling our allies they are either with us or against us and say that we are with them, we need better and more accurate intelligence and we need to stop the pre-emptive, i
unilateralist paranoia non-sense Dubya is spewing.  This is a battle of civilization against anarchy, not of freedom against terrorism.  Of liberal democracies   Freedom has little to do with terrorism.  The terrorists don't want to enslave us.

But that is just my opinion, and clearly nobody asked me.

Objectives in the war on terrorism:

There are more than two sides in this, contrary to Dubya's moral absolutism-style view of the world.  Right now, it is America versus the world.  We need to make it terrorism vs. the world, or at least terrorism vs. civilized society.

The terrorists (in different factions obviously) have a few clear and shared objectives:

i) The destruction of Israel and/or America, or kill Americans in general.

ii) To cause fear.

iii) To use beforementioned fear for political purpoes ranging from getting their own state, to call people to Islam, to get the Americans out of the Middle East or just to intimidate others into joining them.

iv) Create global jihad, or save that a religious war

v) Bring down local governments that don't cooperate with them (believe it or not, there is an interesting political dynamic in the local governments vs. the terrorists, particularly after 9/11 when it became more taboo to have them around)

vi) To cause changes in society based on fear, particularly ones they feel benefit their fight.

vii) To spread Islam

America's goals:

i) Defeat terrorism, or save that terrorist networks. 
ii) Make our lands safer
iii) Not be intimidated, change our way of life, etc and generally prevent the terrorists from acheiving their goals
iv) Get bin Laden.
v) Get more oil. (added as a cheap joke )

Right now, the terrorists appear to have gotten some of their goals completed.  They have caused fear, so check number 2.  They have used the fear to change our lifestyle, so check 6.  Their ranks have gone up, but they still haven't accomplished any of their main goals, so partially check 3.  Dubya claimed we were fighting a "crusade" at first, and then later apologized.  Regardless, they got a war with heavy religious undertones, check 4.  Again contrary to Dubya claims, Iraq and Al-qaeda were close to enemies.  Iraq didn't work with Al-qaeda in any meaningful manner and bin Laden hated Hussein personally.  Saddam also ran a secular "socialist" government and bin Laden really only wanted to defend the Muslim people of Iraq rather than the government itself.  They weren't really enemies, but they were buddies.  Now he is gone, and he has a country destabilized.  He has a lot of easy targets, and Americans in arm's reach of killing.  And a lot of nice propaganda to go with all that for recruitment.  So I suppose check 5 too.

A short look at our goals confirms we haven't destroyed terrorism, we have been intimidated (see paranoid pre-emptive war***) and we have largely failed to stop the terrorists from their goals.  It is open to debate if we are safer or not, but given the impotence of the CIA, the lax border policy and the general lack of funding across the nation for counter-terrorism programs an easy guess is we aren't much safer than we were on 9/11.  Especially with an enemy that is stronger in numbers than on that day, more elusive and hates us even more.

I find it amusing Bush is running on terrorism as an issue, given his pre-9/11 response and the botched reply in Iraq.  I suppose the current state of things doesn't cheer me up either.

... and All that without mentioning we haven't even captured bin Laden.

Good job, neo-cons.  I mean seriously you guys wrecked the economy, the environment, healthcare, our international alliances, the budget surplus and turned our foreign policy on its head.

But then you had to go and screw up and start a potentially unending war fought against an enemy we cannot define, in places most people can't locate on a map.  Then you pretty much accomplished or allowed to be accomplished every goal of the enemy.

Quote:
That definition was pretty much the use of fear for political purposes, especially in the case of inflicting mass casualties.

I agree with the definition, except that it should have included religious purposes along with the political.
Quote:
One guy kept insisting that all forms of evil could technically be terrorism, and that terrorism was the root of all evil itself. He was a dumbass, needless to say.

Really? Was he at least able to back up his argument with a bit of logic, or was he just making the claim wildly?
Quote:
You cannot win a war on an idea.

Not true. You could always create a stronger, more applicable idea, lace it with promises, and tell people that they will be tortured for eternity if they do not comply. How do you think Christians converted so many people? 
Quote:
When we invade a country, for example, we make the residents angry and the terrorists get new propaganda.

I have to disagree with this completely. News organizations around the world have been exaggerating/fabricating stories about America for years, most likely for the political gain of their leaders. Even if we left the Arab world and promised never to return, they'd still have the ability to use news outlets to get people to do their bidding.
Quote:
Theoretically we could topple every government in the Middle East in a few years, maybe a decade give or take. But ultimately that doesn't stop terrorism. It might make matters worse and potentially destabilize the region further which would lead to more anarchy and chaos.

The stability of the region has never been anything close to "stable." Even if the Arab world did not hate us anymore, they'd just go back to blowing themselves up, as they've done for thousands of years.... I'm beginning to see your point about not being able to stop terrorism.
Quote:
Military force alone cannot stop terrorism, it is literally impossible.

I have to disagree with this too. We could always comit MASS genocide, killing off every arab in the world. This would certainly put an end to physical terrorism. (except in Ireland, but that's a lost cause.  )
Quote:
we need to stop telling our allies they are either with us or against us and say that we are with them

And... you lost me.
Are you trying to say that we should play nice with the people who turned their backs on us, after we have spent countless years (a bit exagerated) fighting their wars? We're not the ones who need to prove that we can be trusted to help our allies, they are.
Quote:
Good job, neo-cons. I mean seriously you guys wrecked the economy, the environment, healthcare, our international alliances, the budget surplus and turned our foreign policy on its head.

You can blame us (traditionally) for the environment. But you can't blame us for the economy, as our conservative leaders are the ones that set up the policies that your liberal leaders ride to a good economy. (that's why republicans never get credited with a good economy; they don't plan for the short term. Case in point, most of the government money that went into developement of the internet was aquired and bookmarked during the Reagan administration, by the former president himself.) You can't blame us for healthcare, since Bush is the only president since the Great Depression to do anything about the rising costs (i.e. the federal prescription drug plan). And you can't blame us for Europe turning its back on us, since they did so of their own accord.

But, hey, nice try there.

First of all, I don't really think religion should be mixed in the definition of terrorism, it doesn't have much to do with it. The relation is caused by the fact that religion and politics are very strongly mixed and interlinked (often nearly the same) in strict muslim states. Therefore the main political goals are often also religious goals. But I do not feel it would be right to contaminate the definition of terrorism with religion just because (the definition of) politics is in practice/reality often contaminated with religion.

brimstone1392 wrote:

Quote:
One guy kept insisting that all forms of evil could technically be terrorism, and that terrorism was the root of all evil itself. He was a dumbass, needless to say.

Really? Was he at least able to back up his argument with a bit of logic, or was he just making the claim wildly?

Practically anything can be backed up with logic of some sort. I'm pretty sure I could make up a reasoning which agrees with what that guy said. But it is not relevant or useful. Dutchies call it mierenneuken (ant-fucking) which means picking on every little insignificant detail. Like Catbert said 'technically'. This doesn't progress a discussion one bit and misses the bigger picture and true intended scope of the discussion they were started. If he was indeed backing it up with such logic I wouldn't call him a dumbass, annoying prick/idiot would probably be closer.

brimstone1392 wrote:

Quote:
You cannot win a war on an idea.

Not true. You could always create a stronger, more applicable idea, lace it with promises, and tell people that they will be tortured for eternity if they do not comply. How do you think Christians converted so many people?   

I guess what you're saying is true... Nineteen Eighty-Four is probably an excellent example of this. In practice it doesn't happen like that though. Also I believe you did not use the word war in the same context as Bill did. Propaganda and influencing society through other devices (such as your own attitude and policies towards them) can do the job. And even then all you can do is make the idea lose momentum, influence and importance, you can't wipe it out. A physical war cannot destroy an idea though, not unless the physical part is purely to assist non-physical purposes such as spreading hatred or breaking the mind by torture. But that is not what I would define as regular straightforward war, and even if it was, the actual method of eliminating the idea would not be the physical war but the side-effects associated to and caused by it. (And I doubt that would be able to get rid of an idea on it's own anyway. Except maybe the idea that war is good and wonderful, like World War I did for a while.)

brimstone1392 wrote:

Quote:
When we invade a country, for example, we make the residents angry and the terrorists get new propaganda.

I have to disagree with this completely. News organizations around the world have been exaggerating/fabricating stories about America for years, most likely for the political gain of their leaders. Even if we left the Arab world and promised never to return, they'd still have the ability to use news outlets to get people to do their bidding.

The only reason it is attractive for them to have propaganda against the US is because they are hated. Also you might have heard of where there is smoke, there must be fire. The US is for a large part hated because of the way it influences the Muslim world with it's presence. (especially its strong presence in places like Saudi-Arabia which is also where Bin Laden came from) Ofcourse, these are mostly religious/muslim hardliners... the reason they are so extreme is because of the nature of Islam (praying 5 times a day, everyday has a strong effect on the psyche) and because of the high pace in which society is forced to change. What Christianity did in many centuries, muslim nations are expected/stimulated to do in decades, this accelerated/unnatural speed of change along with the nature of religion in general and Islam specifically has caused the problems caused by this change to be very great. Another major reason for the ahte against the US is the policy towards the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The US has been seen as the ally of Israel in it's oppression of the Palestinians, sometimes justified, sometimes not... though in general they are indeed on the Israeli side, especially since the second Intifada began and Bush took office. To make matters worse it is also a very holy place to the muslims. This conflict has been going on for like 50 years and the Western world has generally been supportive to Israel rather than Palestine... you should see the kind of propaganda machine you can get going if you have newly killed women and children to broadcast everyday. (Similarly the US media has been shown in studies to cover like 500% Israeli non-combatant casualties and 5% of the palestinian non-combatant casualties. By doing this they tip the balance just slightly towards making it seem like the Israelis have more casualties) Anyhow, regardless of whether you agree with this all, it cannot be denied that such a war is absolutely magnificent materal for ppl making hate-propaganda. If they can make propaganda out of the US supporting certain people and being for a large part passive, imagine what they can make out of a generally considered illegitimate and poorly executed war. Even if you don't think it is that relevant, the point Bill made about it feeding hatred and propaganda remains a valid one. (not to mention that people in Iraq actually seeing daily violence and Americans showing off their weapons... and noticing in daily life that Saddam was actually running their country much better WITH the corruption and other nasty things, those direct influenced people are certainly not going to love the US either... personal experience is much more powerful than propaganda so it does increase anger, among the populace of the country in question at the very least.

brimstone1392 wrote:

Quote:
Theoretically we could topple every government in the Middle East in a few years, maybe a decade give or take. But ultimately that doesn't stop terrorism. It might make matters worse and potentially destabilize the region further which would lead to more anarchy and chaos.

The stability of the region has never been anything close to "stable." Even if the Arab world did not hate us anymore, they'd just go back to blowing themselves up, as they've done for thousands of years.... I'm beginning to see your point about not being able to stop terrorism.

We've certainly not improved matters and on a sidenote, we have not been peaceful or stable for the last thousands (in the case of the US hundreds) of years either. The only difference is in the last 50 years we have found ourselves able/powerful enough to fight our wars OUTSIDE of our borders. Regardless, your statement is a not very well-founded and stereotypical description of the history of the Middle-East and it's attitude. The inexplicite suggestion that we are fundamentally different is also not justified thought I have to admit, that is nothing more than my opinion.

brimstone1392 wrote:

Quote:
Military force alone cannot stop terrorism, it is literally impossible.

I have to disagree with this too. We could always comit MASS genocide, killing off every arab in the world. This would certainly put an end to physical terrorism. (except in Ireland, but that's a lost cause.  )

Suggesting terrorism is restricted to religions like the Islam is not even something I am going to bother arguing against. Any person with intelligent thought, reasoning and a mental age over 10 years should be able to recognize such a thing for what it is: nonsense.

You are correct in disagreeing though, it is not literally impossible. If you kill off everyone till there is 1 person left (or noone left) you have in fact ultimately stopped terrorism. Though I guess it wouldn't really be relevant then...

brimstone1392 wrote:

Quote:
we need to stop telling our allies they are either with us or against us and say that we are with them

And... you lost me.
Are you trying to say that we should play nice with the people who turned their backs on us, after we have spent countless years (a bit exagerated) fighting their wars? We're not the ones who need to prove that we can be trusted to help our allies, they are.

So being an ally means doing/supporting what your ally does no matter what it is, barring your own ability to think and form an opinion on a matter? If that's the case I doubt the US has any real allies besides the small corrupt countries it can bribe.

The dictionary lists it as something like this:
One in helpful association with another. See synonyms at partner.

Nowhere does it say someone who agrees with someone else on everything.

If the US were attacked would their 'allies who turned their back' help? Yes they would. If the UN had agreed (surprise, the UN was right unless the WMD are suddenly no longer the main reason for attacking) there was sufficient reason/proof to declare war on Iraq, would they have helped? Yes they would have. If North Korea started developing/developed Nuclear arms with clear aggressive intent and the US would declare war, would they help? I believe they would. If the US gets tired with China being a communist state and decides to invade it to change them while they still have the advantage in military power, would they help? No they would not, not unless the situation/context warranted such a course of action, if they felt the US was justified. Then they would.

Saying that their allies have turned their backs on them just because they dont unconditionally agree with everything you do is just the kind of black-and-white thoughtpattern that has estranged so many allies. Aren't there many non-US troops in Iraq helping 'rebuild' and 'secure' it right this moment? Didn't they agree to pay for a significant part, the repairs that are necessary after the US'es war? Isn't the same true for Afghanistan? Didn't they support the US when they took action against Kosovo or Afghanistan? If you look at how the US is treating the UN and international conventions at the same time, I'd say they are giving their allies shit for thanks.

brimstone1392 wrote:

Quote:
Good job, neo-cons. I mean seriously you guys wrecked the economy, the environment, healthcare, our international alliances, the budget surplus and turned our foreign policy on its head.

You can blame us (traditionally) for the environment. But you can't blame us for the economy, as our conservative leaders are the ones that set up the policies that your liberal leaders ride to a good economy. (that's why republicans never get credited with a good economy; they don't plan for the short term. Case in point, most of the government money that went into developement of the internet was aquired and bookmarked during the Reagan administration, by the former president himself.) You can't blame us for healthcare, since Bush is the only president since the Great Depression to do anything about the rising costs (i.e. the federal prescription drug plan). And you can't blame us for Europe turning its back on us, since they did so of their own accord.

But, hey, nice try there. 

Again, Europe was supportive and halfway through Bushes' term they started feeling they could no longer fully support the US in the path it was taking. If that is 'turning your back on someone' then so be it. Mindless loyalty has never been good for anything anyway... Mindless loyalty is exactly what jihad and the current mainstream forms of terrorism THRIVE on... Maybe Bush is jealous that Bin Laden's followers don't ask questions or think for themselves. Guess that's the price (or even definition) of being on the moral higher ground. About the economy... haha... I'm not even gonna bother with that, rofl... you just keep on happily adapting your laws to allow for a higher national debt until nobody wants to lend money anymore and you go bankrupt... the US would then be literally run by corporations who do know how to take care of their money. I imagine Bill Gates would use the White House as secondary home or something.

Seriously though, I am quite right-wing when it comes to economical policies and such. But the manner in which Bush has implemented many in essence good basic principles of capitalism is very poor and will hurt the economy in times to come I reckon. Ofcourse the Democrats will in their days of power again balance this off by doing the opposite things... I'm not knowledgeable enough about US politics and the different economic policies of democrats and republicans to make any statement on who is at fault etc. But suffice it to say that if the general economic policy of Bush were perpetuated for a longer period of time it would brutally come back to bite him and kill off the US economy.

It would be best if Democrats and Republicans could jsut reach a compromise policy (I tend to think the balance should be closer to Clinton's side than Bush's side, stone me if you wish) and run that consistently regardless of whether the current president is Democrat or Republican but ah well... Fat Chance... rofl.

Quote:
First of all, I don't really think religion should be mixed in the definition of terrorism,

What about it Ireland, where religious based terrorism between Catholics and protestants is the primary form of terrorism in the country? I'm not saying that religion is necessary for terrorism, merely that it plays a serious part in it.
Quote:
Practically anything can be backed up with logic of some sort. I'm pretty sure I could make up a reasoning which agrees with what that guy said.

I asked that particular question out of curiousity. Many people who use generalized terms such as "evil" in debates tend to just wave their arms in the air and preach. I was wondering if that was what the guy was doing.
Quote:
I guess what you're saying is true... 

Most of the statement you were responding to was sarcasm.
Quote:
The only reason it is attractive for them to have propaganda against the US is because they are hated.

And we are hated because news organizations around the world have been steering reports towards the negative. Chicken and the egg.
Quote:
We've certainly not improved matters and on a sidenote, we have not been peaceful or stable for the last thousands (in the case of the US hundreds) of years either. 

I didn't say that we have improved matters of stability in the region, simply that our presence has no baring on its stability, as they have been fighting everyone and everything for generations. It's in the history books. Oh, and saying that America isn't stable is crap. After all, we don't go around killing every other citizen who disagrees with us. If we did, Moore's head would be stuck on a pike right now.
Quote:
Suggesting terrorism is restricted to religions like the Islam is not even something I am going to bother arguing against.

Relax a bit. I was joking. Besides, even the joke did not suggest that the middleast is the only basis for terrorism. Notice the comment about Ireland.
Quote:
So being an ally means doing/supporting what your ally does no matter what it is, barring your own ability to think and form an opinion on a matter?

I'm not just talking about recent events. You do know that the French got us into the Vietnam war, then ducked out and left us holding the bag, right? It's been going on for years now. We help them, then when we need help, they turn tail and run. Also, in refering to recent events, I find it deplorable that the countries who were against the war entirely are now trying to get involved economically. The French (who broke sanctions with Saddam, allowing him to continue his reign of terror against his own people) didn't want to have anything to do with this war... Until they found out that American companies were getting paid by the governement to aid in the rebuilding. Seems to me that we've been nothing but loyal to our so-called "allies" and (with the exception of England, Australia, and now Germany) they have been nothing but disloyal to us. After all, it's one thing to not agree with an ally, and it's another to insult them while doing it.

Think about it in more personal terms: if you helped a friend when he need it, then that friend refused to even consider helping you when you needed it, would you still be friends with him? Of course not. You can't have a friendship (or an alliance) without the trust that is aquired through a bit (just a bit) of loyalty.

Quote:
Again, Europe was supportive and halfway through Bushes' term...

Again, it was a joke. (well, it was actually more like a sarcasticly defensive comment, made in response to Cat's "neo-con" comment.)
Quote:
Seriously though, I am quite right-wing when it comes to economical policies and such.

Exactly. A joke. Just like that. 
(Yes, another joke. Hey, it's fun.)