Has the War on Terror Been Effective

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
As many on these boards (not you) who agree with your stance always defer to BB when proof is needed, I will defer to 100Meteres, Vroom, ProfX, JTF, who have provided reams of evidence and links to show why we hold our like views.

I myself like to step in hear while at work and don’t really have the time to harvest “proof” or “links” to my beliefs. When I go home from work, I go to the gym and then come home cook for that evenings and the nexts days food and other assorted chores like laundry or cleaning. I then catch a little TV or reading and relax somewhat before bed trying to catch a little news.

I say this because I don’t have the time or inclination to scour the web for “proof” that you will disregard because it won’t line up with your “proof” that you have to “prove” your position.

The weekends are tied up to with fishing, hiking, hunting, or what not. When the weekend comes, I usually take off, so no time to link proof there either.
[/quote]

Yeah Elk. Proof can be a bitch. Especially when you are too fucking lazy to get some.

On the other hand, perhaps you are too busy calling people liars to actually bother with supporting your position.

You are an embarassment.

More on topic than my last post -

One would think that the U.S. might have learned a lesson in Viet Nam about the evils of trying to fight a war and keeping a leg in the political pool at the same time. Failure. Embarassment.

I would like to see the Coalition take their governors off and kick some ass. We have an objective in the GWOT - it is not to make every goddamn bead wearing peacnik happy. It is to destroy terrorists, and in the process dismantle their organizations.

We can’t do that if we are having to appease a bunch of politicians, and a liberal press corps. We should complete the mission with extreme prejudice.

Like Hedo said in a round about way - China’s next. We need to get this war won and in the books before it is too late to prepare for the big yellow giant.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Like Hedo said in a round about way - China’s next. We need to get this war won and in the books before it is too late to prepare for the big yellow giant.

[/quote]

Because China will be an “easy win”, right? All we need is more troops?

If the US is about to take up the effort of starting wars with every other major country on the planet, I think we will have to start paying recruiters a hell of a lot more money.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Like Hedo said in a round about way - China’s next. We need to get this war won and in the books before it is too late to prepare for the big yellow giant.

Because China will be an “easy win”, right? All we need is more troops?

If the US is about to take up the effort of starting wars with every other major country on the planet, I think we will have to start paying recruiters a hell of a lot more money.[/quote]

Did you read where I said “easy win”? Did you somehow read into what I wrote that I thought it would be easy? I Neither said nor implied anything close to that.

Neither did I suggest that the U.S. is taking “up the effort of starting wars with every other major country on the planet”. I said China. If you can’t see the trouble that is brewing on the horizon then you need to wake up. Anti-China sentiment is brewing, especially on the trade front. There is also the whole Taiwan situation, as well as an escalation of tensions between Japan and China.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Like Hedo said in a round about way - China’s next. We need to get this war won and in the books before it is too late to prepare for the big yellow giant.

Because China will be an “easy win”, right? All we need is more troops?

If the US is about to take up the effort of starting wars with every other major country on the planet, I think we will have to start paying recruiters a hell of a lot more money.

Did you read where I said “easy win”? Did you somehow read into what I wrote that I thought it would be easy? I Neither said nor implied anything close to that.

Neither did I suggest that the U.S. is taking “up the effort of starting wars with every other major country on the planet”. I said China. If you can’t see the trouble that is brewing on the horizon then you need to wake up. Anti-China sentiment is brewing, especially on the trade front. There is also the whole Taiwan situation, as well as an escalation of tensions between Japan and China.

[/quote]

I understand all of that. I also know that none of this is new to the very people who sent us to war when they did with Iraq. I think much of this should have been thought out before thousands of troops were sent to the Middle East. We are at a very large disadvantage currently…and if you don’t think the rest of the world is noticing that then there isn’t much else to say. We are closing down American military bases (several of which were a major income of surrounding cities), pulling troops from other countries and our own enlistment is down in the dirt. It doesn’t take a genious to see that if anything did pop off, it would be utterly stupid to not promote a military draft. You know, what you all said would never ever happen?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
As many on these boards (not you) who agree with your stance always defer to BB when proof is needed, I will defer to 100Meteres, Vroom, ProfX, JTF, who have provided reams of evidence and links to show why we hold our like views.

I myself like to step in hear while at work and don’t really have the time to harvest “proof” or “links” to my beliefs. When I go home from work, I go to the gym and then come home cook for that evenings and the nexts days food and other assorted chores like laundry or cleaning. I then catch a little TV or reading and relax somewhat before bed trying to catch a little news.

I say this because I don’t have the time or inclination to scour the web for “proof” that you will disregard because it won’t line up with your “proof” that you have to “prove” your position.

The weekends are tied up to with fishing, hiking, hunting, or what not. When the weekend comes, I usually take off, so no time to link proof there either.

Yeah Elk. Proof can be a bitch. Especially when you are too fucking lazy to get some.

On the other hand, perhaps you are too busy calling people liars to actually bother with supporting your position.

You are an embarassment.[/quote]

You haven’t provided any more damn “proof” on any damned matter then I have! All you provide much like me is your opinion You stupid asshole.

I have conflicting views on the war on terrorism. I think valid arguments can be, and have been, made on both sides of the debate. I would prefer if we kept our nose out of the affairs of other countries. However, I concede that in this day and age, given the history of the last 100 years, that’s pretty unrealistic. With that said, dont you all think that it is a little too early to be judging the ultimate efficacy of the Bush adminstration’s efforts? All conspiracy theories aside, if you believe the Bush admin is sincere in its efforts, and this is just a debate about tactics, I think it is far to soon to tell if the war on terror has been effective.

If the current conflict in the Middle East succeeds in bringing long term stability and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, I think there is a strong chance that the cultural makeup of the entire region may be changed for the better. But lets face it, this is one hell of a complicated issue and no side has all the answers. It is just as likely that Bush and company may just end up breading more animosity. Current statistics on terrrorism mean nothing…only time will tell.

To those worried about our freedoms being taken away…in general, I agree with you. I dont have a lot of trust in our government, or any for that matter, so things like the Patriot Act worry me. But I gotta say, sometimes many run the risk of discrediting their own cause by overexaggerting the extent to which our freedoms are in actual danger. Some make it sound as though we are living in Nazi Germany and are only seconds away from being sent to some sort of death camp. I think our nation is headed in the wrong direction but this isnt Nazi Germany and it isnt just this Republican admin doing the damage. In my opinion, this country’s founding principles were largely forgotten (or perhaps discarded) long ago (at least in practice) and the Bush admin is simply falling in line with a majority of its predecessors.

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
You haven’t provided any more damn “proof” on any damned matter then I have! All you provide much like me is your opinion You stupid asshole.[/quote]

No - you admit that there is proof to your position. You’re just to lazy to find it. You asked all the other libs on here to carry your water for you.

Why let your mouth get you into trouble when you’re to damned lazy to work your way out? Why not just shut the hell up? Why does ProfX, 100M, or your boy-toy vroom need to bail your big mouth out of a jam when you won’t even make an attempt?

There is nothing to my statement that requires proof. I’m not calling anyone a liar, or a baby killer, or a racist. I stated my opinion. Just because YOU are too damned lazy to back up your accusations, does not default them to being opinion. But it does make you lazy.

And that is an embarassment.

But nice comeback with the stupid asshole quip. I’m sure you thought long and hard before firing that little salvo.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I understand all of that. I also know that none of this is new to the very people who sent us to war when they did with Iraq. I think much of this should have been thought out before thousands of troops were sent to the Middle East. We are at a very large disadvantage currently…and if you don’t think the rest of the world is noticing that then there isn’t much else to say. We are closing down American military bases (several of which were a major income of surrounding cities), pulling troops from other countries and our own enlistment is down in the dirt. It doesn’t take a genious to see that if anything did pop off, it would be utterly stupid to not promote a military draft. You know, what you all said would never ever happen?[/quote]

You are lumping several unrelated events into one bowl and trying to make an argument for us being unprepared.

Base closures have been going on for the better part of 20 years. It’s part of the modernization of our military. It has nothing at all to do with Iraq. Or the looming Chinese threat.

First time enlistments are low, but I think the other side of that coin is that RE-ENLISTMENTS are at all time highs such that troop strength is not suffering at all.

We are not pulling troops from other countries because of diminished troop strength. They are not needed where they are postioned currently. Why not move troops from Germany? What is the threat there? When was the last time you remember an American military presence being necessary to maintain the peace in Germany, or any where else in the NATO Bloc? It has nothing to do with Iraq. But if I have to tell you that, then maybe you just don’t get it.

I’m sure the military strategists have a much better grasp of our capabilities than does a doctor and an accountant. I just want to get the Iraq thing finished before China decides to become aggressive. And if we keep fighting the war to please all of the press and the politicians instead of fighting to destroy the enemy, we will never get out of Iraq.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are lumping several unrelated events into one bowl and trying to make an argument for us being unprepared. [/quote]

No, I am using common sense, noticing current events and putting one and one together.

[quote]
Base closures have been going on for the better part of 20 years. It’s part of the modernization of our military. It has nothing at all to do with Iraq. Or the looming Chinese threat. [/quote]

There has never been this large of an effort for base closures. My base alone is preparing to take in thousands of military that are coming from closed bases. This has never happened on this scale before and I am amazed that you actually think this is business as usual. What exactly do you need to be able to see what is going on in front of you?

[quote]
First time enlistments are low, but I think the other side of that coin is that RE-ENLISTMENTS are at all time highs such that troop strength is not suffering at all. [/quote]

Prove this. The majority of the people I come across are getting out when their times is up. Yes, there are many who are re-enlisting, but don’t pretend as if this number has increased. I am going by personal experience to let you know that the desire to stay in has decreased, especially in those who have hit 20 years where-as before, many would stay in beyond that time.

[quote]
We are not pulling troops from other countries because of diminished troop strength.[/quote]

You honestly believe that suddenly, all of these troops are being called from foreign territory and it has nothing to do with the increased need for more military in Iraq?

Or perhaps we went in at the wrong time under the wrong intel in the first place.

Recruitment is actually not as bad as the msm paints it to be. Combat units have no problem attracting recruits. The major combat divisions in the Army and the Marines have no issues. The ratings that are not combat capable, but are called in for support are lacking. Suipport can always be contracted out. Meal service, some maitenance, logistics already is to a degree.

Lots of folks join the army for school, a trade, a job. Others to fight. The combat units weed out those that are there for a paycheck. Especially the tooth of the tiger units and the Marines. If you join to learn how to be a diesel mechanic you may not want to join now because you’ll be fixing them in Iraq instead of Germany. If you join because you want to drive the tank and engage enemy targets you have to compete for that position. Same thing with the Marines, every Marine is a rifleman. They draw a different breed of man.

As to China. They are the next big opponent to face the US. Strong growing economy. Communist-Facist government. Very Pro-Military. Large Military industrial complex. It’s coming and we are preparing for it. They will try us against over Taiwan. My guess is about 2010. At that point they will have the Amphibious capabilty to make the crossing, a decent submarine force to picket the straits against the US and a perception of air superiority. If we stand still this will come to pass. Taiwan will become occupied and we will lose all influence in the Pacific. More likely we will overcompensate against them and contain them. Taiwan will be a disaster for them and the big confrontation will be postponed. The wild card is the politics. They could get overthrown and a democracy could take over in China. Who knows?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
There has never been this large of an effort for base closures. My base alone is preparing to take in thousands of military that are coming from closed bases. This has never happened on this scale before and I am amazed that you actually think this is business as usual. What exactly do you need to be able to see what is going on in front of you?[/quote]

Well then I guess we’d better judge a 20 year history of base closures on what is happening in your backyard. You don’t get it. You are trying so hard to connect dots that aren’t there except in your mind. I see exactly what’s going on. I’ve seen it going on since the late 80’s. What exactly do you need to cure your Henny-Penny syndrome (if you don’t know what that is, I assure you it is not anything even remotely related to pootie-poo)?

[quote]First time enlistments are low, but I think the other side of that coin is that RE-ENLISTMENTS are at all time highs such that troop strength is not suffering at all.

Prove this. [/quote]

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-954557.php

This link is not the reference I am looking for, but it does show that re-ups are greater than the quota. I heard a guy on the Medved talking about the re-up numbers. I’ll find out more - just give me some time.

[quote]We are not pulling troops from other countries because of diminished troop strength.

You honestly believe that suddenly, all of these troops are being called from foreign territory and it has nothing to do with the increased need for more military in Iraq?[/quote]

Evidently not to the degree that you and other anti-war guys seem to.

[quote]And if we keep fighting the war to please all of the press and the politicians instead of fighting to destroy the enemy, we will never get out of Iraq.

Or perhaps we went in at the wrong time under the wrong intel in the first place.
[/quote]

I see the press and the politicians are doing a bang up job getting their anti-war/anti-Bush message to stick in a few heads.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lifticus,

“Other than that we cannot fight wars against “Isms”. At best it will be like the war on poverty or the war on drugs–both of which are un-winnable due to the nature on mankind.”

Sure we can - we fought Nazism.

Second, the other ‘wars’ you refer to are social conditions largely - no one is really fighting a ‘war’ against an ‘enemy’. Societies clash, and that is a traditional war, and that is what we have here - terror is just a means because the Islamists do not have the ability to confront its enemies in a conventional military war.

“The second issue you state about the Islamic Jihadists reclaiming the “old-world” Islamic Ottoman Empire couldn’t be more ridiculous.”

Nonsense - go read what OBL has said himself. He wants the old borders of the empire restored.

“This is the line of reasoning that the Bush administration uses to scare and put fear into the citizens of this country.”

You have anything better than this? This old hackneyed line is due for a retread. The Islamists are out to get back what they think was taken from them - and that means reconquest of all their favored lands. This is not a matter of opinion.

“Lets look at the facts: there is not one nation that is even initiated enough to peruse this conquest–nor would they have the means without European support.”

Several flaws here. First of all, terror can have a huge impact on industrial output without actually wiping out cities or battalions.

Second, just because they don’t have the means - yet - doesn’t mean they won’t do what they can to weaken their enemy. Moreover, how many days before Iran is a nuclear-tipped power? How long would it be till those capabilities were tranferred to like-minded Islamists? The mere threat of nuclear war in Europe is enough to cause the kinds of problems you insist don’t exist.

Could we beat them after they arm? Oh, yes. But at what cost?

“Thirdly, in WWII we had enemies with borders and a strong centralized government and had an actual mission agenda. We will never defeat all terrorists”

I suspect you are right, to some degree - but they can only exist in a place that permits their sanctuary. Take this away, and they are as good as defeated.

“–nor will we find them or know where they are at any given moment (we couldn’t even find WMD in Iraq).”

Finding them is a matter of intelligence, but it is also a matter of what to do when we get the intelligence - like demand they be turned over to the US or the nation harboring them suffer the consequences.

“Unfortunately this is a war that will only be fought with policy and good hard intelligence.”

Like every war ever in the history of wars. Does this mean anything? [/quote]

Un, we didn’t fight against Nazism. We fought Nazi Germany. An actual state with men, materiel, borders, etc. If we fought against Nazism, then we lost because it’s still here, in various other forms.

The war on terror is more like a game of whack-a-mole: smack one down and another pops up, forever.

[quote]I suspect you are right, to some degree - but they can only exist in a place that permits their sanctuary. Take this away, and they are as good as defeated.
[/quote]
You mean like the ones living in the US and Great Britain and all the other Western countries? Are we giving sanctuary to terrorists? We can wipe out every single Moslem nation on the planet and there will still be Moslem terrorists in our midst. A lot of folks on this forum live in a fantasy land where every thing is black and white, the good guys are easily distinguished from the bad and we will prevail because of our red-blooded, steely-eyed, square-jawed determination. Does it occur that we might need to be creative, subtle, intelligent, sophisticated? Perhaps encourage democratization in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc?

Yeah, good question. I wonder why we went after Iraq instead of Iran, since Iran is a bigger threat to us, given their nuclear pursuits. I’m sure we have a plan.

Not all terrorists are created equal. A Palestinian who thinks he is striking back against Israeli aggression is not the same as a Saudi who flies a plane into an American skyscraper is not the same as an Iraqi suicide bomber. They are not all fighting for the same thing, for the same reasons. It is shortsighted to lump them all together and thing that by bombing the hell out of some place or another, we are making headway against terrorism. No one has proposed therapy for terrorists (although God knows they could use it), it’s more of the Sun Tzu admonishment to know thy enemy. To this I would add the ancient Greek proposal to know thyself. The government of the US and the West have practiced a foreign policy that is self-serving and Machiavellian, in declaring themselves defenders of liberty, demmocracy and justice in this or that instance, while turning a blind eye to brutal oppression and benighted autocracy in others. This makes us hypocrites. It is in direct opposition to our fundamental values (liberty, justice, free speech, individual rights, etc). It doesn’t sit well with a world looking to us for leadership and it doesn’t sit well with our own citizenry. This is why our own country is so divided and partisan right now. If we are so damn concerned about the welfare and freedom of the rest of the world why are we not assiduously putting our money where our mouth is? Why have we not intervened in Darfur, for instance? Why have we not pressured Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for democratic reforms? These are just a few examples.

I do believe America is the greatest nation on earth and because of that, I hold us and our government to a higher standard. I expect us to live up to our ideals or at least really push to achieve those ideals. I expect the people to question the government thoroughly when it spends our money and sends our troops into battle and I expect there to be full reckoning and accountability. If you aren’t willing to take responsibility for everything that happens on your watch, you have no business being president or any other kind of leader. That is what I was taught when I was in the military. No whiny-assed excuses were permitted. If something went to shit, you stood up, took responsiblity and did what it took to fix it. America has been and can be a force for great good in the world, but we have been arrogant and short-sighted in our policies of late. This can be changed, if the people hold our leaders to a higher level of integrity and honor. There will always be enemies, there will always be those that hate and fear us. But that number will be greatly reduced if we have the courage to admit our mistakes and do what it takes to repair the damage.

Regards,

WMD

WMD

The war on terror is a stalemate, at times, because we fight fair.

The terrorists can be defeated militarily. We lack the political will.

[quote]hedo wrote:
WMD

The war on terror is a stalemate, at times, because we fight fair.

The terrorists can be defeated militarily. We lack the political will.[/quote]

You lack the sheer possibility of ever being able to wipe out a concept completely as long as there are those willing to follow it. WMD did a great job explaining it. In terms of the nazi’s, there are still those who follow those beliefs…so did we win a war on Nazism?

I do agree that if this were a localized flare up of followers of this concept, then we could topple their mass efforts with military force…but that isn’t what we are facing. Any plot that takes place here in the US will be the result of people who are more than likely already here…not over there.

looks like “war on terror” is out and
“global struggle against extremism” is in .

[quote]rainjack wrote:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-954557.php

This link is not the reference I am looking for, but it does show that re-ups are greater than the quota. I heard a guy on the Medved talking about the re-up numbers. I’ll find out more - just give me some time.[/quote]

I found more and you are right, re-enlistments do seem to be up in the Army even though National Guard recruits are hitting another low much the same as it has for the last 9 months.

My guess is it has much to do with the reenlistment bonuses that have increased in order to keep them in. In that article, one SPC received $15,000 for her reenlistment. Money talks.

http://www.manassasjm.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=MJM/MGArticle/WPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783921676&path=

I think one figure that has been ignored in this comparison is the “net” value. So let’s say that invading Afgan/Iraq has has some value since the U.S. hasn’t had another big terrorist event since 9/11. Ok, but at what cost? How many lives have been lost in Afgan and Iraq? How much money have we spent? Look at the total picture.

USA is way ahead. Bad guys two towers, good guys two countries plus no consequential attacks in the west. Further, US prestige is on the rise throughout the middle east and the bad guys are slipping in popularity. That is the score board today - the question as to wheter or not we should’ve gone into Iraq won’t be answered for at least ten years. Right now it’s any unanswerable.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
WMD

The war on terror is a stalemate, at times, because we fight fair.

The terrorists can be defeated militarily. We lack the political will.

You lack the sheer possibility of ever being able to wipe out a concept completely as long as there are those willing to follow it. WMD did a great job explaining it. In terms of the nazi’s, there are still those who follow those beliefs…so did we win a war on Nazism?

I do agree that if this were a localized flare up of followers of this concept, then we could topple their mass efforts with military force…but that isn’t what we are facing. Any plot that takes place here in the US will be the result of people who are more than likely already here…not over there.[/quote]

Yes National Socialism was defeated and essentially became a fringe movement. The Nazi’s went from dreams of world conquest that fielded an army and controlled a country… to the skinheads. So were the Nazi’s defeated? Absolutely. Nobody seriously thinks the Nazi’s will rise again. Germany was denazified following WW2 by the US Govt.

We’ll never wipe out every last terrorist but zero toleance has to be the goal. If we can take it from an organized group such as Al-Queda to a fringe movement then it is a win.

Today people think about terrorism all the time. The goal should be to shrink it down to the wacko level the skinheads occupy if you want to compare it to Nazism.