How can one war on terror?
Who are we at war with?

Who ever the Commander-in-Chief decides. Scary isn't?

Who have our 'great' Commander-in-Chief's, News Media's, Intellectual's (sic), designated?

The last time it was some guy who tried to whack Bush the Dumber's daddy.

The capture of the throne of Saddam.

---

How can one war on terror? Terror is just a tactic. It's as if stating we are at war with the Blitzkrieg.

That was the point of it wasn't it? Be at war with a vague and open to interpretation concept and use it as a reason to wage war with who ever you like.

There was no problem in mentioning we are at war against The NAZI's, Marxists, etc.

Well for one the United States have never been at war with the Marxists. And second, it was fine to say you were at war with the Nazis because that is a very specific group of people, namely the Fascist German government headed by Hitler. Its a war that has a clear end, namely once Hitler and his government surrendered or were otherwise destroyed.

What is the problem in just mentioning WHO/WHAT we are at war with?

Because words have power. They shape reality and the way people look at reality. Being at war with something has certain implications in the way people look at reality and at daily life. By telling them you are at war with something, you shape their thinking and lead them to accept or reject certain things. Because you are 'at war' people are led to believe that they have to give up their privacy to the intelligence agencies, that they need things like the TSA at airports, that 'enhanced interrogation' is necessary, that the government needs to spend 700 billion dollars on the military, that assassinating US citizens through a drone strike program is acceptable and that countries that 'support' terrorists need to be attacked.

That is why it matters how you talk about things.

Мишель...

Forgetting for the moment what OTHER'S are saying we are at war with. What is YOUR thinking regarding what we are at war with? If anything.

Well the war on terror has never ended has it? So, you are at war with whoever you want to be at war with. For now that has mostly been with a bunch of non state organizations that to some degree threaten US interests. Though honestly, waging a war with them is a mistake. It only upholds the forces that you are fighting to begin with. The war is self serving and by fighting it, you are keeping it around.

Do you agree there can be no war against a tactic (terror/blitzkrieg)?

BTW: WWII (European Theater) was fought by America, for it's self-interest. So?

Well yes and no.

I mean obviously you can't wage the conventional war where you set up a bunch of tanks and have them shoot at 'terror'. As a tactic or strategy, terror or blitzkrieg are just concepts, ideas on how to fight a war. But technically it is possible to wage a war against an idea. Not that you should do that of course. Also, the war against terror wouldn't be the first time America fought a war against a concept. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against death, etc.

But the war on terror has never been about waging war against the concept or idea of terror itself. Its always been about fighting the people that wield terror as their main weapon. Which I believe, is a mistake.

And of course you fight these people out of self interest. That wasn't a value judgement, just a statement of a fact.

Disagree about 'defeating' an Idea. Idea's never die. Just an Idea's capacity in exert its will upon many others. Sometimes to return to significance.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that you can't try to wage a war against the idea. It just means that such a war never really ends.

War on Drugs, Poverty, etc., is just using a word. They are not real wars.

Yeah but like I said, words have power. By using the word war, you frame this particular effort into a certain way. Its effect is very visible in the war on drugs. Look at how the US struggles against drugs. All the US anti drug policies are very one sided brutal repressive policies that have a very militaristic feel to them. Police raiding drugs labs, extremely harsh punishments for everyone who is caught with drugs, etc. And in Mexico, the war against drugs has escalated to the point where the Mexican government is pretty much fighting a street war with the drug cartels.

By framing the whole thing as a war, the policies that deal with it are pushed into a certain direction. You could have had a very different drug policy if it wasn't framed as a war. What if you had just called it the US drug policy? Sounds a lot more neutral, and as a result it would pushed the actual drug policies into a much more neutral direction, perhaps with a larger emphasis on prevention, addict health care, possibly the decriminalization or legalization of certain soft drugs, etc.

Do you agree, or disagree, they may be a threat to The West, if they win?

Well this is interesting. I'm going to say yes and no. As terrorist organizations, they do not pose a threat. Terrorism is the weakest, least effective way of fighting a war or achieving your aim. As absolutely horrible 9/11 was, you have to put it in perspective. They killed a lot of people and they destroyed a few buildings. Horrible, seriously horrible. But killing people doesn't topple governments. It doesn't topple congress. Or the supreme court. Or the economy. Or the values you believe in.

At the other hand, yes they can pose a threat if you allow them too. Their threat is not of a physical nature, its not that they are capable of unleashing a physical hell on your country, their threat is psychological. Do you allow yourself to be intimidated by them. The United States did allow them to be intimidated by the terrorists. By betraying their own values and sending in the army and breaking international law, the United States showed that it was intimidated by the terrorists and that it did exactly what the terrorists wanted. It gave them attention, it gave them legitimacy. By sending the world largest military power after them, it upgraded this little terrorist group consisting of a bunch of illiterate goat herders to this all powerful evil organization that got the worlds attention. Had you ignored them, they would have never gotten what they wanted. Sure, they would probably still be around, in their caves, living their miserable lives until they would simply give up. They would have never achieved the legitimacy or the attention they craved.

And what if the terrorist organizations wins in the Middle East and they gain a state so to speak? Well then they form even less of a threat. For terrorists to gain a state they weaken themselves. Say ISIS wins from Iraq and they carve out this state for themselves in a part of Iraq, do you think they get stronger? Of course not. It means they have to set up institutions, which are static. It means they have an army for territorial defense or attack. If they gain a state and declare war on the West, the West has an easy time flying bombers over bombing them back to the stone age. All they would do is paint a huge target on their backs.

Disagree about 'defeating' an Idea. Idea's never die. Just an Idea's capacity in exert its will upon many others. Sometimes to return to significance.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that you can't try to wage a war against the idea. It just means that such a war never really ends.

War on Drugs, Poverty, etc., is just using a word. They are not real wars.

Yeah but like I said, words have power. By using the word war, you frame this particular effort into a certain way. Its effect is very visible in the war on drugs. Look at how the US struggles against drugs. All the US anti drug policies are very one sided brutal repressive policies that have a very militaristic feel to them. Police raiding drugs labs, extremely harsh punishments for everyone who is caught with drugs, etc. And in Mexico, the war against drugs has escalated to the point where the Mexican government is pretty much fighting a street war with the drug cartels.

By framing the whole thing as a war, the policies that deal with it are pushed into a certain direction. You could have had a very different drug policy if it wasn't framed as a war. What if you had just called it the US drug policy? Sounds a lot more neutral, and as a result it would pushed the actual drug policies into a much more neutral direction, perhaps with a larger emphasis on prevention, addict health care, possibly the decriminalization or legalization of certain soft drugs, etc.

Do you agree, or disagree, they may be a threat to The West, if they win?

Well this is interesting. I'm going to say yes and no. As terrorist organizations, they do not pose a threat. Terrorism is the weakest, least effective way of fighting a war or achieving your aim. As absolutely horrible 9/11 was, you have to put it in perspective. They killed a lot of people and they destroyed a few buildings. Horrible, seriously horrible. But killing people doesn't topple governments. It doesn't topple congress. Or the supreme court. Or the economy. Or the values you believe in.

At the other hand, yes they can pose a threat if you allow them too. Their threat is not of a physical nature, its not that they are capable of unleashing a physical hell on your country, their threat is psychological. Do you allow yourself to be intimidated by them. The United States did allow them to be intimidated by the terrorists. By betraying their own values and sending in the army and breaking international law, the United States showed that it was intimidated by the terrorists and that it did exactly what the terrorists wanted. It gave them attention, it gave them legitimacy. By sending the world largest military power after them, it upgraded this little terrorist group consisting of a bunch of illiterate goat herders to this all powerful evil organization that got the worlds attention. Had you ignored them, they would have never gotten what they wanted. Sure, they would probably still be around, in their caves, living their miserable lives until they would simply give up. They would have never achieved the legitimacy or the attention they craved.

And what if the terrorist organizations wins in the Middle East and they gain a state so to speak? Well then they form even less of a threat. For terrorists to gain a state they weaken themselves. Say ISIS wins from Iraq and they carve out this state for themselves in a part of Iraq, do you think they get stronger? Of course not. It means they have to set up institutions, which are static. It means they have an army for territorial defense or attack. If they gain a state and declare war on the West, the West has an easy time flying bombers over bombing them back to the stone age. All they would do is paint a huge target on their backs.

Great post.

---

Reality Internet Personality

If they gain a state and declare war on the West, the West has an easy time flying bombers over bombing them back to the stone age. All they would do is paint a huge target on their backs.

==================================================

while this is true as we learned in afghanistan it is hard to bomb someone into the stone age when they already live there.

---

If they gain a state and declare war on the West, the West has an easy time flying bombers over bombing them back to the stone age. All they would do is paint a huge target on their backs.

==================================================

while this is true as we learned in afghanistan it is hard to bomb someone into the stone age when they already live there.

Yes it is. You have to have the will to go in with flame throwers and exterminate. If you don't have that, you don't go at all.

The USA should not go to war unless the exit strategy is 1) Total unconditional surrender, or, 2) Total extermination.

---

If they gain a state and declare war on the West, the West has an easy time flying bombers over bombing them back to the stone age. All they would do is paint a huge target on their backs.

==================================================

while this is true as we learned in afghanistan it is hard to bomb someone into the stone age when they already live there.

Yes it is. You have to have the will to go in with flame throwers and exterminate. If you don't have that, you don't go at all.

The USA should not go to war unless the exit strategy is 1) Total unconditional surrender, or, 2) Total extermination.

Of which side?

If they gain a state and declare war on the West, the West has an easy time flying bombers over bombing them back to the stone age. All they would do is paint a huge target on their backs.

==================================================

while this is true as we learned in afghanistan it is hard to bomb someone into the stone age when they already live there.

Yes it is. You have to have the will to go in with flame throwers and exterminate. If you don't have that, you don't go at all.

The USA should not go to war unless the exit strategy is 1) Total unconditional surrender, or, 2) Total extermination.

Of which side?

The losing side.

---

The USA should not go to war unless the exit strategy is 1) Total unconditional surrender, or, 2) Total extermination.

Iraq unconditionally surrendered and what did it accomplish? Of course what was the reason for the war in the first place.

---

Agree, except one thing.

They, and other's, do pose an extreme threat to large populations around the world.

The capacity for them to inflict vast damage to populations is almost at hand. I speak of Biological, and Radioactive capability.

One cannot assume these groups will not use them. It is silly, and historically incorrect, to assume they will not.

Sorry but I see no evidence that terrorist groups are about to get their hands on biological weapons and a delivery system they can use to seriously threaten the existence of western nations.

And as far as history goes, there has been what? One example of a non state actor using a biological weapon against people (Tokyo Subway by that crazy cult).

State actors do use them (although rarely) but like I said, once a terrorist organization manages to get its own state, they become extremely visible and therefor weak. Its easy to bomb states, even easier if you have proof they attacked you with a WMD. The world will give the victim of such an attack an almost free pass to take whatever steps it deems necessary to stop such a state.

My fear is by not stopping them first, perhaps using power (ethics) not employed since WWII: The West's response to these 'weapons', will be unimaginable by today's thinking/morality.

Don't believe Human Beings are not capable of this. A scared, and terrified population, is capable of anything.

We MUST. By anyway necessary. Stop them. For the sake of their populations, and for our souls.

My point is that fighting them with military means and in the context of a war we cannot defeat them. We only strengthen them. I suggest you look up the 'New War' thesis by Mary Kaldor. She explains how the war discourse keeps reinforcing certain dynamics that keep terrorist organizations alive and functioning. She essentially argues that for terrorists like Al Queda fighting the war is the primary objective. They do not want to win the war on terror, they want to keep operating in a state of war. They profit from the war. The same is true for parts of the US. The military industrial complex benefits from an eternal war, because they get to rake in the fat government military contracts. People are profiting from the war and as a result they do not want it to end and they are fighting it in such a way that it won't end because no one can or wants to win.

I see no evidence of use, or possession, of Atomic Weapons before 1945. So?

Your time frame regarding ability to possess Weapons of Mass Destruction (Biological/Radioactive) is silly. Today? No. Tomorrow? No. After that, (5 - 10 - 15 Years) Is Possible. If you don't believe that. Why not?

Delivery Systems? Do you really believe Intercontinental Missiles, or Bomber's to Deliver/Place a Backpack, Trunk of Car, etc., are needed?

Let's get practical. You are hiding your 'Head in the Sand'. History, and Human Nature, has shown the 'Unthinkable' HAS and WILL happened.

But... I guess your (and other's) assurance's, it will not happen, is sufficient.

If it happens, then what?

So because there is a distant possibility that maybe at some moment in the future terrorists might get their hands on a WMD and therefor it is perfectly reasonable to fight an utterly pointless war that only benefits said terrorists and the military industrial complex in order to prevent it. Yeah, makes sense.

Even by your own reasoning this effort is completely futile because the worst that can happen will inevitably happen according to you because 'human nature'.

But alright, say terrorist do manage to set off a WMD and kill a bunch of people. How should you respond? Well, find the people responsible and bring them to justice. Thats it. You don't need to invade other countries, you don't need to start this drone assassination program, there is no need to wage a war on terror.

First sarin gas is wmd and was used in Japan some years ago that it had not been
weaponized is the only reason thousand did not die.

Second the way to make war on terror is in the courts make terrorists legitimate international target and make it dangerous to fund them and you severely limit what they can do and where they can hide.

now why can't we do something like a war on poverty.

---

First sarin gas is wmd and was used in Japan some years ago that it had not been
weaponized is the only reason thousand did not die.

Second the way to make war on terror is in the courts make terrorists legitimate international target and make it dangerous to fund them and you severely limit what they can do and where they can hide.

now why can't we do something like a war on poverty.

wait a minute

we have a war on drugs yet drugs are more available every day
we have a war on terrorism yet it seems like there are more terrorists everyday

so i suggest that instead of a war on poverty lets have a war on money and wealth .

---

Therefore: Use ALL the Heavy Lift Capacity of the West and transport AK-47's, with 5000 rounds apiece, over this region. Adding 'a number of suitcases full of money.

Then parachute the weapons onto the people terrorized/oppressed by 'These' people. The population will then, as they have in the past, kill them all. The money will go to the tribal warlords, who will therefore support the effort. End of OUR problem.

That isn't as strange as it sounds. ISIS was going through Iraq and was about to take Baghdad. The US sent a few hundred troops and they were stopped. Those troops did not go to fight but to get the different Sunni factions to fight each other. That's the ticket use their hatred for everyone and turn it inward.

---

Why not just arm our Allies, The Local Populations?

We have no allies. The trick is keeping them fightig each other so they leave US alone. Iran and Iraq kept each other in check until we destroyed the Iraqi army.

---

First sarin gas is wmd and was used in Japan some years ago that it had not been
weaponized is the only reason thousand did not die.

Second the way to make war on terror is in the courts make terrorists legitimate international target and make it dangerous to fund them and you severely limit what they can do and where they can hide.

now why can't we do something like a war on poverty.

Actually, there is a quick, cheap, and simple way to defeat the Terrorists (you know who I am speaking of). It has been successfully tried, a few years ago, in somewhat modified form.

'These' Terrorists are really a small minority of the populations they terrorize. They succeed in controlling the unwilling populations by having most of the guns.

Therefore: Use ALL the Heavy Lift Capacity of the West and transport AK-47's, with 5000 rounds apiece, over this region. Adding 'a number of suitcases full of money.

Then parachute the weapons onto the people terrorized/oppressed by 'These' people. The population will then, as they have in the past, kill them all. The money will go to the tribal warlords, who will therefore support the effort. End of OUR problem.

This stops the foundation problem with the US involvement in Afghanistan: Tribal Leader's and populations believing it is really an American War.

Do we really care what these populations do with these guns after their victory. It will be among themselves.

Will the above work? It has before. Will it be done? No.

Isn't this method exactly how we ended up with Al-Queda?

---

Reality Internet Personality

First sarin gas is wmd and was used in Japan some years ago that it had not been
weaponized is the only reason thousand did not die.

Second the way to make war on terror is in the courts make terrorists legitimate international target and make it dangerous to fund them and you severely limit what they can do and where they can hide.

now why can't we do something like a war on poverty.

Actually, there is a quick, cheap, and simple way to defeat the Terrorists (you know who I am speaking of). It has been successfully tried, a few years ago, in somewhat modified form.

'These' Terrorists are really a small minority of the populations they terrorize. They succeed in controlling the unwilling populations by having most of the guns.

Therefore: Use ALL the Heavy Lift Capacity of the West and transport AK-47's, with 5000 rounds apiece, over this region. Adding 'a number of suitcases full of money.

Then parachute the weapons onto the people terrorized/oppressed by 'These' people. The population will then, as they have in the past, kill them all. The money will go to the tribal warlords, who will therefore support the effort. End of OUR problem.

This stops the foundation problem with the US involvement in Afghanistan: Tribal Leader's and populations believing it is really an American War.

Do we really care what these populations do with these guns after their victory. It will be among themselves.

Will the above work? It has before. Will it be done? No.

Isn't this method exactly how we ended up with Al-Queda?

No, that would be the Taliban you are thinking of.

---

First sarin gas is wmd and was used in Japan some years ago that it had not been
weaponized is the only reason thousand did not die.

Second the way to make war on terror is in the courts make terrorists legitimate international target and make it dangerous to fund them and you severely limit what they can do and where they can hide.

now why can't we do something like a war on poverty.

Actually, there is a quick, cheap, and simple way to defeat the Terrorists (you know who I am speaking of). It has been successfully tried, a few years ago, in somewhat modified form.

'These' Terrorists are really a small minority of the populations they terrorize. They succeed in controlling the unwilling populations by having most of the guns.

Therefore: Use ALL the Heavy Lift Capacity of the West and transport AK-47's, with 5000 rounds apiece, over this region. Adding 'a number of suitcases full of money.

Then parachute the weapons onto the people terrorized/oppressed by 'These' people. The population will then, as they have in the past, kill them all. The money will go to the tribal warlords, who will therefore support the effort. End of OUR problem.

This stops the foundation problem with the US involvement in Afghanistan: Tribal Leader's and populations believing it is really an American War.

Do we really care what these populations do with these guns after their victory. It will be among themselves.

Will the above work? It has before. Will it be done? No.

Isn't this method exactly how we ended up with Al-Queda?

No, that would be the Taliban you are thinking of.

Ahh, yes, that's the one.

---

Reality Internet Personality