A War We Just Might Win

[GaryC 7]

So Gary, what do we win when we win and how will we know we've won?

This isn't a contest. This is a battle to stop the Islamic radicals from inflicting more harm on us and from them taking over more countries with their vile version of Islam. There is no "we win" moment. This will be an ongoing struggle that will last decades. Even when we get Iraq settled and can leave it still isn't over. It will continue somewhere else. Your mind is set on a clear victory. Sorry to say that is never going to happen. But the alternative to fighting the war on terror is more countries falling to the terrorists, more attacks in our country and eventually we will not be able to stop it. Just remember this, We were not in Iraq in 9/11. We were not in Iraq when the trade center was bombed the first time. We were not in Iraq when the USS Cole was bombed. We were not in Iraq when the Africa embassies were bombed. We didn't pick this fight. It was forced upon us. They declaired war on us a long time ago. Afganastan and Iraq are just the opening rounds. But you are sadly mistaken to think that it will end when we either retreat from Iraq or secure the country so we can leave. This is going to last for decades.

I've still yet to see the historical precedent for an extremist religious/political ideology (especially one where there are appreciable cultural differences to consider also) being defeated exclusively (or even largely) by military force. I agree with you that the fighting will go on for decades, but are we using the right weapons to defeat what are essentially ideas? Fighting fire with fire and all that. Just seems to me that US foreign policy (and indeed its supporters) have and continue to take an extremely blinkered view of that part of the world. Iraq is not a fishbowl - the policy we adopt there has a ripple effect other countries, frames people's views of the US and its government. Some of that may be positive - but in other respects it isn't'.

Thats the trouble, there is no historical precedent for any of this. This is a brand new type of conflict and we are still finding our way. It's natural to fight the way your used to (military action) and I understand that it will not be the total cure for this problem. But I honestly think that keeping the terrorists busy in Iraq has kept them from hitting us again so far. It isn't going to keep them at bay forever and something else needs to be done. The biggest problem is there is no one to negociate with. No country or emmisary to talk to. This is a war without borders or a clear cut enemy.

Your point that this is a war of ideas isn't really correct. Those ideas have translated into many attacts and countless lives lost. It has also enslaved millions of people into the restrictive ways they want others to live. They are using an idea as a war cry but they are using conflict to spread it. Fighting back is our only recourse at this time. What it is going to take for a long term solution is the Muslim world to rise up against these guys and fight back themselves. Trouble is we can't force that. But to protect ourselves we need to keep these people on the defensive as much as we can.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not sure it has protected us to be honest. Britain never used to have people ramming explosive filled car through the gates of airports (and then setting themselves on fire) - IRA aside (at that was quiet in mainland Britain after the Docklands bombing in '95). How do you destroy the extremist ideology (an ideology which people convince themselves to die for) by invading countries, destroying their infrastructure (and in the process - displacing thousands of people). I'm not sure I'd like to think about Iraq as some sort of crucible for holding in the violent elements - as that carries with it some rather distasteful connotations (that the welfare of 'their' people is worth more than our own). Maybe it is - but that's not a stance I support. Moreover, increasing resentment at US foreign policies is what Bin Laden et al rely upon to get new recruits.

Similarly in this supposedly new conflict - why is it we are apparently turning a huge blind eye towards Saudi Arabia, a country which the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from, with links to Bin Laden and which bankrolls a lot of this stuff? As I saw in the news today its still business as usual - with $10bn worth of arms sales planned over the next 10 years.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for military action - but you can't go about it unilaterally - and in doing so take a dump on the sovereignty of independent nations. In that regard - I don't think the likes of Iraq forms the basis of a viable, long-term foreign policy.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

wouldn't make sense to tell Saudi Arabia, "No more!"?

oh yeah that should work wonders

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

wouldn't make sense to tell Saudi Arabia, "No more!"?

oh yeah that should work wonders

I think he was speaking figuratively.

[GaryC 7]

So Gary, what do we win when we win and how will we know we've won?

This isn't a contest. This is a battle to stop the Islamic radicals from inflicting more harm on us and from them taking over more countries with their vile version of Islam. There is no "we win" moment. This will be an ongoing struggle that will last decades. Even when we get Iraq settled and can leave it still isn't over. It will continue somewhere else. Your mind is set on a clear victory. Sorry to say that is never going to happen. But the alternative to fighting the war on terror is more countries falling to the terrorists, more attacks in our country and eventually we will not be able to stop it. Just remember this, We were not in Iraq in 9/11. We were not in Iraq when the trade center was bombed the first time. We were not in Iraq when the USS Cole was bombed. We were not in Iraq when the Africa embassies were bombed. We didn't pick this fight. It was forced upon us. They declaired war on us a long time ago. Afganastan and Iraq are just the opening rounds. But you are sadly mistaken to think that it will end when we either retreat from Iraq or secure the country so we can leave. This is going to last for decades.

That's just it...you can't 'win' a war against terrorism. If this is a struggle over ideologies, we're not going to 'win' over people's minds using military force. If Saudi Arabia is financing the very schools that breed such fundamental extremism, wouldn't make sense to tell Saudi Arabia, "No more!"?

Bin Ladin literally declaired war on us. Following that were the bombings in Africa, the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole. I agree that SA is a big part of the problem but we have the problem of needing them for the oil. If we want to go back to the stone age and just forget about all our technology then we have to play with that devil. It's just a reality of our world, we need the oil. I don't think the government of SA is directly responsible for the support but a lot of the religious leaders in that country are. There is no one solution to this problem short of declairing war on any government that allows their religious leaders to recrute and fund the terrorists. In the mean time we need to confront the terrorists where they are. Right now they are in Iraq and Afganistan. When we kick them out of those countries then we need to move on to wherever they move to.

[Dan J 277]

Iraq and Islamic extremism are two separate issues. They are only sort of linked, due to the power vacuum caused by the fall of Saddam, and the US inability to quickly reestablish government.

Iraq prior to the US invasion, was more of a secular country. With no ties to Islamic extremism. Just because Saddam, wasn't exactly a nice guy, didn't exactly put him on the same team as Islamic extremists. Just because you are both bad, doesn't mean you will get along.

Islamic extremist still don't make up most of the fighters in Iraq. Who we are fighting in Iraq are people pissed off at how nicely we messed up the country. They are basically resistance fighters. Just like there were in France and Spain when Nazi Germany occupied those countries. There are a few in Iraq who are fighting with other agendas, but they don't make up the majority.

Its so easy to label everyone opposing the US as Islamic extremists, but the reality is much more complicated than that. Not everyone fighting against the US, is doing so because they follow the ideology of al Quada. Some are fighting to protect their homes, just as many of you here would be of someone dropped a bomb on it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Iraq and Islamic extremism are two separate issues. They are only sort of linked, due to the power vacuum caused by the fall of Saddam, and the US inability to quickly reestablish government.

Iraq prior to the US invasion, was more of a secular country. With no ties to Islamic extremism. Just because Saddam, wasn't exactly a nice guy, didn't exactly put him on the same team as Islamic extremists. Just because you are both bad, doesn't mean you will get along.

Islamic extremist still don't make up most of the fighters in Iraq. Who we are fighting in Iraq are people pissed off at how nicely we messed up the country. They are basically resistance fighters. Just like there were in France and Spain when Nazi Germany occupied those countries. There are a few in Iraq who are fighting with other agendas, but they don't make up the majority.

Its so easy to label everyone opposing the US as Islamic extremists, but the reality is much more complicated than that. Not everyone fighting against the US, is doing so because they follow the ideology of al Quada. Some are fighting to protect their homes, just as many of you here would be of someone dropped a bomb on it.

...over half of foreign fighters in Iraq that have been captured are from Saudi Arabia. It's like this huge elephant in the closet and the Bush Administration turns a blind eye because of our interdependency with SA. So instead we get feel good rhetoric rather than actual strategy in addressing fundamental extremists who've declared Israel and it's allies, their enemies.

[GaryC 7]

Iraq and Islamic extremism are two separate issues. They are only sort of linked, due to the power vacuum caused by the fall of Saddam, and the US inability to quickly reestablish government.

Iraq prior to the US invasion, was more of a secular country. With no ties to Islamic extremism. Just because Saddam, wasn't exactly a nice guy, didn't exactly put him on the same team as Islamic extremists. Just because you are both bad, doesn't mean you will get along.

Islamic extremist still don't make up most of the fighters in Iraq. Who we are fighting in Iraq are people pissed off at how nicely we messed up the country. They are basically resistance fighters. Just like there were in France and Spain when Nazi Germany occupied those countries. There are a few in Iraq who are fighting with other agendas, but they don't make up the majority.

Its so easy to label everyone opposing the US as Islamic extremists, but the reality is much more complicated than that. Not everyone fighting against the US, is doing so because they follow the ideology of al Quada. Some are fighting to protect their homes, just as many of you here would be of someone dropped a bomb on it.

I beg to differ. Most of the people blowing themselves up and setting IED's are not from Iraq. They are coming from other countries. These people are motivated by the religious indoctrination of Al Quatia. The Iraq people are caught in the middle.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bin Ladin literally declaired war on us. Following that were the bombings in Africa, the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole. I agree that SA is a big part of the problem but we have the problem of needing them for the oil. If we want to go back to the stone age and just forget about all our technology then we have to play with that devil. It's just a reality of our world, we need the oil. I don't think the government of SA is directly responsible for the support but a lot of the religious leaders in that country are. There is no one solution to this problem short of declairing war on any government that allows their religious leaders to recrute and fund the terrorists. In the mean time we need to confront the terrorists where they are. Right now they are in Iraq and Afganistan. When we kick them out of those countries then we need to move on to wherever they move to.

But if our long-term strategy is to put economics before security then we're not going to achieve a whole lot. Pretty big flaw in the strategy if you ask me.

I beg to differ. Most of the people blowing themselves up and setting IED's are not from Iraq. They are coming from other countries. These people are motivated by the religious indoctrination of Al Quatia. The Iraq people are caught in the middle.

Prior to the war - this was not possible.

[GaryC 7]

Bin Ladin literally declaired war on us. Following that were the bombings in Africa, the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole. I agree that SA is a big part of the problem but we have the problem of needing them for the oil. If we want to go back to the stone age and just forget about all our technology then we have to play with that devil. It's just a reality of our world, we need the oil. I don't think the government of SA is directly responsible for the support but a lot of the religious leaders in that country are. There is no one solution to this problem short of declairing war on any government that allows their religious leaders to recrute and fund the terrorists. In the mean time we need to confront the terrorists where they are. Right now they are in Iraq and Afganistan. When we kick them out of those countries then we need to move on to wherever they move to.

But if our long-term strategy is to put economics before security then we're not going to achieve a whole lot. Pretty big flaw in the strategy if you ask me.

It's a catch 22. While we are fighting in Iraq we should be putting as much pressure on SA to get them to change. I am not privy to the diplomacy so I don't know what is going on there.

I beg to differ. Most of the people blowing themselves up and setting IED's are not from Iraq. They are coming from other countries. These people are motivated by the religious indoctrination of Al Quatia. The Iraq people are caught in the middle.

Prior to the war - this was not possible.

Maybe not in Iraq but it was happening in a lot of other places. At least now it is happening in a place where we have our military that can deal with it. Without Iraq they would be in places we might not be able to deal with it. Don't for a minute think that the Iraq war has "created" terrorists. Those people would find another motivation to attack us. They did it before Iraq and they will do it after Iraq is done.

[Jamie76 0]

Iraq and Islamic extremism are two separate issues. They are only sort of linked, due to the power vacuum caused by the fall of Saddam, and the US inability to quickly reestablish government.

Iraq prior to the US invasion, was more of a secular country. With no ties to Islamic extremism. Just because Saddam, wasn't exactly a nice guy, didn't exactly put him on the same team as Islamic extremists. Just because you are both bad, doesn't mean you will get along.

Islamic extremist still don't make up most of the fighters in Iraq. Who we are fighting in Iraq are people pissed off at how nicely we messed up the country. They are basically resistance fighters. Just like there were in France and Spain when Nazi Germany occupied those countries. There are a few in Iraq who are fighting with other agendas, but they don't make up the majority.

Its so easy to label everyone opposing the US as Islamic extremists, but the reality is much more complicated than that. Not everyone fighting against the US, is doing so because they follow the ideology of al Quada. Some are fighting to protect their homes, just as many of you here would be of someone dropped a bomb on it.

I think this "war" and the elimination of Saddam Hussein will be one of the US military's biggest blunders for years to come. A secular government that was bad, but no real threat to the US...we now have this place that is a breeding ground for terrorists. First it was a war to rid the country of WMD's, then it was a war to win the freedom of the people, then it was a war to snuff out terrorist.

[Dan J 277]

Iraq and Islamic extremism are two separate issues. They are only sort of linked, due to the power vacuum caused by the fall of Saddam, and the US inability to quickly reestablish government.

Iraq prior to the US invasion, was more of a secular country. With no ties to Islamic extremism. Just because Saddam, wasn't exactly a nice guy, didn't exactly put him on the same team as Islamic extremists. Just because you are both bad, doesn't mean you will get along.

Islamic extremist still don't make up most of the fighters in Iraq. Who we are fighting in Iraq are people pissed off at how nicely we messed up the country. They are basically resistance fighters. Just like there were in France and Spain when Nazi Germany occupied those countries. There are a few in Iraq who are fighting with other agendas, but they don't make up the majority.

Its so easy to label everyone opposing the US as Islamic extremists, but the reality is much more complicated than that. Not everyone fighting against the US, is doing so because they follow the ideology of al Quada. Some are fighting to protect their homes, just as many of you here would be of someone dropped a bomb on it.

I beg to differ. Most of the people blowing themselves up and setting IED's are not from Iraq. They are coming from other countries. These people are motivated by the religious indoctrination of Al Quatia. The Iraq people are caught in the middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

There you go, detail on what kind of groups make up the insurgency. Majority of which are Iraqi. Foreign fighters make up a very small number.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bin Ladin literally declaired war on us. Following that were the bombings in Africa, the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole. I agree that SA is a big part of the problem but we have the problem of needing them for the oil. If we want to go back to the stone age and just forget about all our technology then we have to play with that devil. It's just a reality of our world, we need the oil. I don't think the government of SA is directly responsible for the support but a lot of the religious leaders in that country are. There is no one solution to this problem short of declairing war on any government that allows their religious leaders to recrute and fund the terrorists. In the mean time we need to confront the terrorists where they are. Right now they are in Iraq and Afganistan. When we kick them out of those countries then we need to move on to wherever they move to.

But if our long-term strategy is to put economics before security then we're not going to achieve a whole lot. Pretty big flaw in the strategy if you ask me.

It's a catch 22. While we are fighting in Iraq we should be putting as much pressure on SA to get them to change. I am not privy to the diplomacy so I don't know what is going on there.

Wow, that's a cop-out! You're just going to shrug your shoulders about why the Bush Administration doesn't have any comprehensive strategy to deal with the fact that it was Saudi nationals who flew the planes, who are infiltrating and fighting our troops in Iraq and are funding the schools in Pakistan??? We need to be asking the right questions, Gary! We need to holding people's fight to the fire.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bin Ladin literally declaired war on us. Following that were the bombings in Africa, the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole. I agree that SA is a big part of the problem but we have the problem of needing them for the oil. If we want to go back to the stone age and just forget about all our technology then we have to play with that devil. It's just a reality of our world, we need the oil. I don't think the government of SA is directly responsible for the support but a lot of the religious leaders in that country are. There is no one solution to this problem short of declairing war on any government that allows their religious leaders to recrute and fund the terrorists. In the mean time we need to confront the terrorists where they are. Right now they are in Iraq and Afganistan. When we kick them out of those countries then we need to move on to wherever they move to.

But if our long-term strategy is to put economics before security then we're not going to achieve a whole lot. Pretty big flaw in the strategy if you ask me.

It's a catch 22. While we are fighting in Iraq we should be putting as much pressure on SA to get them to change. I am not privy to the diplomacy so I don't know what is going on there.

I beg to differ. Most of the people blowing themselves up and setting IED's are not from Iraq. They are coming from other countries. These people are motivated by the religious indoctrination of Al Quatia. The Iraq people are caught in the middle.

Prior to the war - this was not possible.

Maybe not in Iraq but it was happening in a lot of other places. At least now it is happening in a place where we have our military that can deal with it. Without Iraq they would be in places we might not be able to deal with it. Don't for a minute think that the Iraq war has "created" terrorists. Those people would find another motivation to attack us. They did it before Iraq and they will do it after Iraq is done.

Undoubtedly it has created some terrorists - people who are fighting for causes of their own than for political reasons. Then you have the factional groups - including Al Sadr's Mehdi Army - people who were already in Iraq but were kept under control by the old regime. The fact that there are Al Qaeda affiliated groups within Iraq now is not a sign of victory - its merely a sign of what was inevitable at the outset. What you have are destabilising elements taking advantage of the chaos of a what is nothing less than a civil war.

[GaryC 7]

Bin Ladin literally declaired war on us. Following that were the bombings in Africa, the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole. I agree that SA is a big part of the problem but we have the problem of needing them for the oil. If we want to go back to the stone age and just forget about all our technology then we have to play with that devil. It's just a reality of our world, we need the oil. I don't think the government of SA is directly responsible for the support but a lot of the religious leaders in that country are. There is no one solution to this problem short of declairing war on any government that allows their religious leaders to recrute and fund the terrorists. In the mean time we need to confront the terrorists where they are. Right now they are in Iraq and Afganistan. When we kick them out of those countries then we need to move on to wherever they move to.

But if our long-term strategy is to put economics before security then we're not going to achieve a whole lot. Pretty big flaw in the strategy if you ask me.

It's a catch 22. While we are fighting in Iraq we should be putting as much pressure on SA to get them to change. I am not privy to the diplomacy so I don't know what is going on there.

Wow, that's a cop-out! You're just going to shrug your shoulders about why the Bush Administration doesn't have any comprehensive strategy to deal with the fact that it was Saudi nationals who flew the planes, who are infiltrating and fighting our troops in Iraq and are funding the schools in Pakistan??? We need to be asking the right questions, Gary! We need to holding people's fight to the fire.

I am saying that I don't know what diplomacy is going on behind the scene and you don't either. What do you want to do, invade SA?