How can anyone win a war on a tactic like terrorism?

[oc2002]

The whole concept is a fallacy.

How is it that politicians wrap a war in Iraq as a war on terrorism? Terrorism is a tactic used by groups, like Al Qaeda, what does that have to do with Iraq? There was no link to Al Quada and Saddam, never was. Now the war in Iraq is a CIVIL war, and they are using a tactics of terror by bombing each other and US troops caught in the middle. What is the real intentions of the US government in Iraq then? Or, have the Iraqi people figured it out, and nobody has told the American public that we are really there to protect our assets and interests in oil?

You can have a war on Al Qaeda, but not a war on a tactic. It just makes no sense.

[burythehatchet]

1. George Soros explains it quite well

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-soros...

The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies. Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts -- Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia -- a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world.

• First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists.

• Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly.

• Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown by foiling a plan to blow up to ten airplanes, terrorists are best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.

• Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.

[oc2002]

4. thats a good analysis, I would only add that the real intentions are oil

The war in Iraq is not a war on the terrorist involved in 9/11, but a war on the people of the middle east to ensure that we control the region and the resources in the region. That we are the 'big dog' that has the biggest bite, and to show the other nations in the region what will happen to them if they cross our interests.

That is the whole point of keeping our troops in Iraq, no mater that they are just cannon fodder to a corrupt and imperialistic policies.

Let me add, it(war on terror)is vague by design to facilitate war against anyone who counters their interest. Remember how the Cold War was used to justify our support of despots and the overthrow of elected governments. There were a lot of powerful people who were looking to create a new boogie man after the fall of the Soviets and 911 was mana from heaven for them.

The question is, was the administration putting the gaurd down to let the terrorist strike by ignoring the recomendations and warnings prior to 911? we may never know the truth, but why are they not being held accountable for 911 is another question.

[kestrel91316]

2. Why do you hate America???

lol

[noonwitch]

3. The same way we won the war on drugs!

LOL, and the way we won the war on poverty, too.

[pauliedangerously]

5. You can't even have a war on Al Qaeda

War is declared on a country.

This scenario comes straight out of "1984," and the people who are falling for it are the ones who think they have a lot of common sense and most likely had difficulty in English class, befuddled by such things as "theme," "metaphor," and "allusion."

[wryter2000]

6. It's worse than that

It's a war on terror. A war on an emotion. You might as well proclaim war on sadness or anxiety.

[MrCoffee]

7. Ummm...you can't

Remember the war on poverty, the war on drugs...wars on concepts don't work. a "war" on a tactic leads to the big unanswerable question, when can you declare victory?

[VOX]

8. You can't make war on an idea -- it's like chasing smoke.

Of course, for the neocons' political purposes, a "war on terror" is ideal, since it has no end:

When will the "war on terror" be over? Never. :grr:

[greyl]

9. Only by waging peace, I think. nt