Terrorism revisited.

[pinto]

Presidential politics has long been about symbols, sound bites and today's talking points. It is now as it ever was, only more so, I guess.

And, as always, the world and our future remain just over that next election, come what may in our internal political arenas. Yet we remain one of the enfranchised nations. It's worth remembering.

There is a world beyond American politics. That world increasingly includes stateless factions, disenfranchised, that see violence as a viable political tool. Maybe they see it as the only tool at hand, I don't know.

This I do know, though, to disregard their role in the world and our future is shortsighted to a fault.

The Bush Administration has failed miserably to address organized stateless violence. They have ignored the assets of established - and legal - systems to ferret out mobile networks. They have cast, and recast, their 'war on terror' in outdated global frameworks, complete with a front line and a victory.

This is not our conflict with fascism, as in Hitler's nationalistic, geographic state bound agenda. This isn't the Cold War with some of the same overtones. This isn't VietNam, with it's clear, local geographical agenda for political control of an area.

Invading Iraq was part and parcel of that old mindset. Their 'war on terror' *can't* be won in Iraq. Nor can it be won. The premise is wrong.

Terrorism as a political tool has an agenda. Someone in our government ought to start looking at it in that context, in my humble opinion. And it has an appropriate response.

It's not going to go away on a slogan or a sound bite. I truly hope our candidates remember that as we prepare to take back the White House.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Your right, but I don't think the candidates can come out and say that

They would be savaged by the Corporate Media. I do hope they're thinking about that. I think Obama gets it, Hillary not so much. Look at how Obama is being savaged because he dared to tell the truth about economic bitterness. You think Obama can come out and say the "war on terror" can't be won? He can't. But I do hope the candidates are thinking about the realities of the situation with terrorism instead of saying "they hate us for our freedom."

To be honest, I don't even think we should have thousands of troops in Afghanistan to wage our "war on terror." It's all a bunch of BS if you ask me. Of course that may sound politically incorrect, but I don't think we're going to "win" the "war on terror" by waging war with combat troops. It's a joke to even think that we can. We need to use other, non-violent methods.

[cornermouse]

2. I'm not sure the Bush Administration or at least, the key

members of the Bush Administration care whether organized stateless violence is addressed or not. They have protection. The terrorists are unlikely to ever strike them accidentally or on purpose. I doubt they're actually very concerned about our safety. After all, members of the Bush Administration are some of the authors of "survival of the fittest" and "every man for himself" legislation that's been passed during the last 28 years.

addition: please note that I chose not to use this as a forum to talk up or talk down either candidate.

[JoFerret]

3. Between that, the economy and the wars

Jesus we face an uncertain future.
And with the GOP it will be worse than uncertain.

BOTH our dem candidates have a great shot at turning things around. There can be hope and real change.
I just (strongly) prefer one over the other. All all kinds of thoughtful reasons.