Can America continue this War on Terror? is it really feasible? attainable to win? I don't think so. and I hate that Obama has continued it. I hope the next president is not as stupid as this guy or we can screw the pooch on America. sound off.
I think it largely depends on what the mission is, what the cost/benefits are, and how much support it has at home and abroad. In regards to Afghanistan, there are great costs and few benefits. We are supported by NATO and their respective countries, but its the US military doing most of the heavy lifting. The mission and goals itself I think have gotten lost over the years and while we have done a great job of crippling Al Qaeda and removing them from their safe haven, there hasn't been much accomplished in the last 10 years.
Yes and no. When 9/11 happened, Al Qaeda truly had a presence around the world and had unofficial support from many Arab states. Engaging Al Qaeda around the world was the right thing to do, as they had many safe houses, and allies operating abroad. I can't say for certain what Al Qaeda's reach is now. But I have to assume it is still deeply crippled. But the fact that Al Qaeda's leadership is still at large (minus OBL) I must assume they are still a threat. Afghanistan at this point is a mess beyond repair. The Taliban are likely to return to power after we leave. Its pretty well known the US government has been trying to negotiate a peace deal with them in the last few years. And other NATO allies such as France and GB don't have a lot of support amongst their citizens to continue the war. Not to mention the Afghan government is pretty much worthless and corrupt. They aren't going to keep things under control after we leave and can barely do it now with the support of thousands of NATO troops. Continuing the war in Afghanistan this late in the game is truly a farce, and in that respect we are chasing boogeymen.
The war on terror is sustainable. However we must make the price so high that the terrorist will decide that terrorism is not worth the price they pay. To accomplish we would have to highly escalate the cost of them doing the terrorism. We would have to have the backbone to do some nasty things. If they kill one we kill ten of them. If they kill three thousand we kill three hundred thousand of them. Before the first massive retaliation I would suggest we first warn them and their benefactors that the next terror attack will result in much destruction of life and property. This is the first time in history since the first A bomb was dropped in war. While there is still a risk for nuclear war I doubt if anyone would risk it. So the USA could use nukes if it came to it. Yes its horrific to think about such things, but so is watching women jumping from 45 stories up and people being burned alive due to the action of terrorist goons. I would rather see all our troops come home and we build a fortress western hemisphere. Isolation served us well for the first roughly two hundred years of our existence. Anyway if we could isolate the west and fortify it, I would select this latter option to the total war option. The bad news is that neither option is likely to be chosen and we will continue the meat grinder option which will eventually lead to WW3 anyway, and that truly blows. reva
This is the sort of attitude AQ expects from us. They expect us to shoot first and ask questions later. They perceive us as barbaric war mongers who don't care about anyone but ourselves. All you are doing is agreeing with Al Qaeda that we should turn the world upside and make it into our own personal warzone. What we should be doing to persuade Al Qaeda and its sympathizers is that America is not evil and that we are truly a force of good. That means we shouldn't be invading countries like Iraq or Afghanistan to the extent of which we have now. We never should have used torture on POWs in Abu Graib, and Gitmo. Using dictators like Gaddafi to support our secret prisons was also a huge mistake. The fact that Gitmo was transformed into a prison system and we took in so many people who never even had connections to terrorism was also a big failure on our part. This war on terror is not about bullets and bombs. It is about ideologies. The only way you can win this war is to prove to your enemy that you are not what you are portrayed as by individuals like Bin Laden.
You can't fight ghosts. Who is the terrorist...is he the one on my right or my left...don't know, they're both in a robe and turban and speak funny. Gosh, the books they are holding. Are they hol books or road maps> I just can't tell. Can I shoot now sareg? "No, wait until I check with the lawyer back at camp"...but they're shooting at me..."I know, duck "
That's a wildly inaccurate analogy...if our boys are fired upon by apparent enemies, they do not have to request permission to defend themselves in a life or death situation.
What war on terror is that then? You are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and they never ever attacked America. You invaded Iraq and they never ever attacked America either. The so called "war on terror" is just something that Bush made up and many Americans bought into it.
The problem is we aren't fighting the wars the way they should be fought. You go in, you kill the enemy, then you leave. Playing cop is not the realm of a US soldier. You see a parade of people wearing masks, suicide vests, real and/or fake, guns on their bodies cheering terrorism you napalm their ass you don't sit around taking their pictures. They need to learn that to celebrate terrorism is to celebrate their own deaths. You do that by killing them.
Killing them is exactly what they want. Being overly aggressive is what they expect from us. Dying in battle emboldens them and becoming martyrs is what they want. I have always believed that leading by example is how you win this war. Simply invading their countries and racking up high body counts does not stop terrorism. Especially not when they are motivated by ideology and the belief that we are evil barbarians.
You are just proving my point. If you don't take the time to understand the enemy, you won't understand how to combat them.
I don't need to understand dead people. If they are our enemies kill them then we won't need to understand them because they'll be dead.
None of my claims are bogus. Iraq never attacked America and they were not terrorists either so war on terror equals BS.
We didn't attack Iraq because they were terrorist. We attacked Iraq because they thumbed their noses at us while flaunting the UN hiding or pretending to hide their weapons of mass destruction. We had to teach them a lesson, you don't play with us or you get taking down.
