[ryoushi]

April 1, 2004, (April Fool's Day) (http://ryoushisblues.blogspot.com/2006/11/day-america-lost-war-on-terror.html) the day after four Americans were killed and mutilated, burned and displayed for all the world to see on the streets of Fallujah. The day after the men, women and children of that city were jubilant, and danced and cheered in front of every video camera they came across.

April 1, 2006 President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer no doubt on the advice of senior military commanders allowed the sun to set on Fallujah instead of destroying it...

[Malone LaVeigh]

I would say it's the day Congress caved in to the political arm-twisting and lieing and gave Bush the power to drop the ball in Afghanistan and invade a country that, up till that time, had very little to do with anti-US terrorism.

[cbsbyte]

Actually the day we lost the "War on Terror" is when President Bush and his handlers decided to invade Iraq. A country that had very little to do with Terrorism and was a good buffer to Iran intentions in the ME. Now that the Geni is out of the bottle it looks like Iran and Syria will now dictate the outcome in Iraq which part of will become a puppet state of Iran. Afganistan also looks lost since it has been put on the backburner since Iraq. Now, that the Dems are in control we will be out of Iraq by the end of next year, except for a token advisory force to help out the Iraqi military if needed. But the country will divide and become three new nations that will side with Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

[gc70]

But the country will divide and become three new nations that will side with Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.Who sides with Turkey, since the Turks and Kurds are not exactly buddies?

[tellner]

We lost it the day it was declared. "Terror" is an emotion. "Terrorism" is a tactic. Neither can ever be destroyed the way that you can defeat an army. You can reduce it. You can prevent it. You can lessen the effects. But if we killed every single terrorist in the world a new crop with new grievances and a new lust for revenge would spring up. The bomb-throwing anarchists of a century ago are gone. So are the Molly Maguires. And Quantrill. The use of terror is still there.

By giving in to terror we sealed our own defeat. Instead of "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" we now have "The only thing we have is fear." Pointless TSA security theater. Tom Ridge's bag of election-flavored M&Ms. "You're either with us or with the terrorists." Extraordinary renditions. Torture. Plastic sheeting and duct tape for home gas shelters. Universal wiretapping. Terror. Terror. Terror. Terror. Terror. Terror. We've mostly done it to ourselves which shows either remarkable economy on the part of the current crop of terrorists or calculated stupidity on ours.

And what hope are we given? Endless war with no possible hope of victory and ever-increasing calls to give up essential liberty for a little temporary security.

[JohnL2]

This "War on Terror" is kind of a sham. This thing has been on a slow burn for what - maybe 30 years? Ever since they were hijacking airliners in the 70's to get the Wests' attention.
It just finally came to our shores in unbelievably spectacular fashion on 9/11/01. I bet Israel was thinking, "well now they know how it feels".
I remember how good I felt when the campaign in Afghanistan started. That carpetbombing was beautiful. Then we "whipped a turn into the cornfields" and took off into Iraq. My only thought was "Huh???", what is Bush thinking?
The Middle East has been a political basketcase for a very long time. And it is hubris and folly to think a half-assed regime change is going to change things.

When I was a soldier I knew what I was getting into. I knew what I signed up for. My only request for my political leaders was if we are going to do it, we go all the way. Don't send us in a fight with one arm tied behind our backs. That was it. The way I saw it, they can't even get that right.

We should support the Kurds and let the Shiia and Sunni slug it out. Some people need the sanguinary experience of Civil War.
Why would you be surprised to get a bloody nose if you get in the middle of a fight?

[cbsbyte]

We lost it the day it was declared. "Terror" is an emotion. "Terrorism" is a tactic. Neither can ever be destroyed the way that you can defeat an army. You can reduce it. You can prevent it. You can lessen the effects. But if we killed every single terrorist in the world a new crop with new grievances and a new lust for revenge would spring up.Very well stated. You speak the truth, I agree with you 100%.

Who sides with Turkey, since the Turks and Kurds are not exactly buddies?

Your right... I mistated the situation. I should of said thatTurkey will invade Nothern Iraq to wipe out the Kurd Militias.

[Zundfolge]

The time to win the War on Islamic Radicalism easily was in the early 70s.

The Israelis had the right idea after Munich.

We should have taken the assassination of Bobby Kennedy as the act of war it was.
We should have taken the '73 OPEC Oil Embargo as the act of war it was.
We should have taken the Iranian Hostage crisis as the act of war it was.

Honestly this war is much older than America.

[Vern Humphrey]

"Terror" is an emotion. "Terrorism" is a tactic.

A sophistic argument developed by someone who doesn't know the difference between tactics, operational art and strategy.

[JohnBT]

"Honestly this war is much older than America."

Naw, it's Bush's fault. :neener:

Just kidding. You're absolutely correct and at the very least we're decades late to the battle.

John

[ilbob]

It is probably time for those who are still capable of intellectual honesty to admit we will almost certainly lose this war. We have a significant portion (maybe even a majority) of the population who pretend it is not a war, it is just politics, Islam is not the problem, etc.

I wonder how long we can hold out. These things can go fast. I would not be at all surprised to see Western Europe dominated by Islam in a decade or two. The US might be able to hold out if we can figure out how to eliminate our need for foreign energy sources, but that is politically unpalatable to the far left, and they now control both houses of congress and the national Democratic party. remember that the far left is really all about eliminating the US as a major world power and you will understand why.

The flood of illegals is likely to only get worse, and exacerbate our problems.

[scurtis_34471]

The War on Terror is a political slogan. As for the War in Iraq, I agree with the original poster. I've been saying for years that we should have backed our troops up to a safe distance and bombed that city back to the stone age. A tactical nuke would have been fine with me. I guaranty that would have made the insurgents think twice before screwing with us again. We fought this war the wrong way. They already think we are bastards. That's not going to change. What we should have done was become the bastards they all thought we were and put the smack-down on this thing early in the game.

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't think we necessarily needed to fight a War on Terrorism. I think Bush wanted to fight one, and thought he needed to in order to look like he was doing something after 9-11.

We should have concentrated on Bin Laden. Small units, spies, and assassins could have done what the US Army could not.

[xd9fan]

The war on Terror.....the war on drugs....the war on poverty.......

[tellner]

Vern, let's try again.

A "War on Terror" is ridiculous. You can't win a war against an emotion. You certainly can't win a war against being scared by whipping up unreasoning fear. It's kind of like fornicating to stop sex.

A "War on Terrorism" is equally inane. You don't fight a war against a particular tactic. And no, I'm not going to be drawn into a bootless quasi-Talmudic argument about the precise distinction between "tactic", "strategy" and "operations".

Under what conditions could you say that you have bombed fear into submission or made it impossible for people to be scared of political violence? You can't answer that. I can't answer that. Nobody can answer that because it's impossible unless we set up mandatory lithium drips for every man, woman and child on the planet.

That's not a "sophistic" argument. It's shining a tiny beam of light into the semiotic smog issuing out the back end of the spin machine.

[tellner]

Indeed. The hunt for Bin Laden sort of disappeared when 43 decided that he had the chance to pander to his daddy issues and make his friends at PNAC proud by invading Iraq and ensuring a hundred-year reign of Pax Americana.

Unfortunately the Pakistanis were the wrong people to outsource the Bin Laden contract to. And the White House managed to step on its collective manhood and empty its magazine into its foot in Iraq. Of course, the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon's own wargaming and our allies in the region had already said as much. But they are part of "the reality based community (http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30F1EF93A5F0C748DDDA90994DC404482)" and don't count.

We have managed to kill a lot of Iraqis and their supporters from around the Muslim world. Unfortunately, that has taken care of the hate-America recruiting needs for the next generation. We aren't willing to conquer like Subothai. So we blow up a lot of stuff and kill a lot of people without making the problem any better and turning potential allies into deadly enemies by the million. Judicious use of force? Certainly. Better intelligence? Without a doubt. Infinite money and unlimited lives for an endless war based on a faulty metaphor? Come on.

When four planes were crashed into three buildings and one field we said "It came from Afghanistan. We're going to drop the Big Hammer on Afghanistan." The rest of the world said "We'll hold your coat." Le Monde said "Nous sommes touts Americains." NATO is still sending troops there. When our only ally, Tony Blair, and our greatest unhanged war criminal, Henry Kissinger, say that Iraq is an unwinnable disaster you know something has gone very wrong.

[pax]

Great topic for APS.

pax