Are we winning the war on terror?

And here's a quote from further down in the article.

"Bloody attacks on civilian targets by spinoff terrorist groups are now virtually a weekly occurrence worldwide."

Yeah, we are definitely safer now than we were three years ago. Good job, W.

When you first begin to seriously engage a deadly enemy who needs to be opposed, it is entirely possible that initially you will be in more danger, rather than less, particularly if you're fighting a worldwide war against a loosely connected movement. I believe that many struggles in history have put the eventual victors at greater risk when they first engaged the enemy, becuase it tends to make the enemy mad that you are actually fighting back.

Bush never promised that we would be safer at each moment of our war on terror. The things he is doing are intended to make us safer eventually. It's the difference between short term and long term thinking.

And, incidentally, it seems to me that the constant running patter from the left about how we're losing, and we shouldn't be doing what we're doing, and the casualties are more than we can bear, etc., etc. has the effect of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

well of course we are winning the war on terrorism, The president told us we are. He wouldn't lie.

How about pitching in and helping, rather than trying to ridicule the government's efforts? It is not very intelligent of us to be fighting each other, when faced with a brutal, relentless enemy.

Really? I would think that the actual reality of those things you mentioned would do that. Two out of the three things you mentioned are true, and the part about the casualties being more than we can bear is debatable. Should we ignore those unpleasant things? Our enemies won't.

The policies of Bush are very similar to the policies and rhetoric of two other countries-- Russia under Putin, and Israel under Sharon.

Both of these countries have held policies that are exactly what Brandon is trumpeting.

Israel has been supporting military invasion for 40 years. Russia invaded Chechnya and has supported strong military action as well.

It doesn't seem like this tough bullying approach that supports muscle and bravado over brains and diplomacy works very well-- at least it hasn't worked for Russia or Israel or us for that matter.

The problem is that to win a war, tt helps to be smarter than your enemy.

Right now Osama understands that he is in a war for hearts and minds-- Bush and his followers doesn't. That's why Bush's idiocy is putting our nation is much more danger.

Iraq is the best thing possible for extremists, including Osama. It allows fundamentalists to stand up to American military might in a cause that much of the Arab street (that is those who are not fundamentalists) see as just. We are making Osama into a folk hero for much of the world.

Not only that, we have gotten rid of those puny little terror traning camps in Afganistan and replaced it with one big terror training camp in Iraq. What could be better training for terrorists than to fight real American troops among a civilian population.

Fighting and winning against terrorist is something that we would all like to see. But any fool knows that if you are going to fight, you should fight on terms that favor you. Iraq takes the military might of the US and bogs it down in a situation where it is at a strong disadvantage.

The US is taking the same path as the two countries who face the worst acts of terror. Israel and Russia are locked into these paths because of ideaology.

Both countries claim that their policies make them safer. Both counties have been following these militaristic hard line policies for years. And both still face terrorism supported by populations their "anti-terrorist" policies have repressed.

Give me one example where this type of mindless hard-line militaristic idiocy has actually made a country safer.

I for one do not want to continue down this path.

ebrown, try to do what I do and just think of it as "population control"

Anyone who feels that way should attempt to make improvements from within, rather than make public statements which can only give our enemies hope and undermine the will to fight at home. Fatalistic and pessimistic statements, and statements about how few losses we are willing to endure can only give comfort to our very real and very deadly enemies.

Why do you get so upset about our differences of opinion on this issue? I am trying to make improvements from within. I'm helping people on this site see that the man who is running our country is failing in his responsibilities. You think he's doing a great job. That's wonderful. But don't come on here and try to quiet me down just so nobody hears facts that don't fit into your view of the world, please. Thank you.

That's all. Maybe if enough people see this, we can get this idiot out of office this November and start to fix his messes. Not that that will be an easy task. He mucked it up pretty good.

The so called 'War on Terror' is much like the so called 'War on Drugs'. There is no real war...just a catchy phrase to make the population think something is being done to make them safer and their lives better.

You have the right to say anything you like, and campaigning to elect Kerry or the candidate of your choice is exactly what I'm advocating, but some people would wish on their own to refrain from making statements that give aid and comfort to our enemies. Crowing with delight about every American military reversal, and incessant bemoaning and exaggeration of our admittedly tragic personel losses do indeed have this effect. Responsible people do not wish to use freedom of speech as an excuse for irresponsible speech.

You're confusing delight with disgust, Brandon. You're a fear monger. Your fear does not allow you to see. Wake up, please. I am not hurting America, as you imply. You seem to have a habit of exaggerating things, and imagining the worst. But when the worst is happening right before you, you don't see it.

And by the way, my opinion of Bush has nothing to do with left or right. He's just wrong.

You're right kickycan.

It goes along with that notion that war isn't about who is right - it's about who is left. . .

Terror is in the mind of the terrorized. If one chooses to remain fearless, the Bush atmosphere is a bit like living in the stands at the Indianopolis 500 only it's an everyday event.

There could be an explosion somewhere, but that's why you came. Isn't it?

You're actually hoping something will happen but just far enough away to sell the videotape of something rad, and not to get hit with any sparks.

Just don't make me eat anything disgusting, that's all I ask. I'm an American but I am not required to eat slime. You want to see terrorism? Try to make me eat something dead.

I'll show you terrorism.

Have you ever seen a match burn twice?

What's the alternative to fighting the war on terror? Surrendering to it? Sorry, I don't feel like being Muslim.

Brandon9000
You are correct we should not be giving aid and comfort to the enemy. However, you seem to be confused as to the source. It come directly from and is strengthened by the actions of this administration. The invasion of Iraq and half finished action in Afghanistan was a gift to Al Qaeda and the terrorists.

The alternative to fighting the war on terrorism, is taking intelligent actions to address the problem of terrorism.

The war on terrorism benefits the terrorists, not us. They want this war. The more countries we invade, the more bombs we drop the more we make our society more fearful and less free, the better for them.

You are giving them exactly what they want-- a struggle for a cause, public support in a part of of the world that feels repressed, popularity, and targets that make very public losses and the ability to be on the international stage almost daily.

All of this is on a battlefield where they have the advantages. They blend into a population we are trying to "liberate". They can shoot and disappear, and there isn't much we can do about it. Our hands are tied and they know it

This is the wrong war.

The alternative is simple...

1. Be the good guys. People in the Middle East know they are being screwed. We need to truly act fairly in the region. This includes the Palestinian issue. Every time we act brutally against people in the region, we add evidence to the view that America is a bad force that must be opposed.

Look at the damage done by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. We are basically losing the battle to any claim to morality. Abu Ghraib was a mistake-- Guantanamo is a policy... but they both have the same affect. People are convinced, with good evidence, that the US is against Arabs. It shouldn't surprise you that the terrorists can use this to great advantage.

2. Act strong in defense. Our strength only works when it is seen to be used in a just cause. Note that most of the world-- including the Arab world-- supported us going into Afganistan after 9/11. Almost no one supports Iraq. In Iraq America lost the high ground and now scant few even support us in Afganistan..

3. Don't surrender our ideals. The word "surrender" to me means to give up who we are. We surrender by giving up freedoms and succumbing to fear. Terrorism is a reality. We need to deal with it without surrendering our freedoms or our beliefs.

The argument for the "war on terrorism" is the very definition of cowardice. We are doing things that are bad for the country... and that are against our own ideals, because of fear.

The alternative is simple-- Courage and Convictions.

This desire to lash out blindly out of fear is wrong. The experiences of Israel, Russia and Iraq prove it.

I'm sorry ebrown_p, I can understand your case, but I do not agree with it. You are making a case for isolationism and, to me, that is not how we should go forward. We rely on Oil from the middle East to allow it to be controlled by madmen such as Osama and Arafat. We need stable, friendly governments that can bring their countries out of the dark ages, kicking and screaming if neccessary.

The world is no longer in a situation where global politics can be ignored. The US must lead the world, where neccessary, towards a global economy and a global unity. Islamic fundamentalists believe that the world should remain under sharia law and that modernization is a threat to the power they hold. If we are to allow open societies and freedom to all, it is up to us to enforce our ideals and strengths. We can not allow the bad guys to win. Ever.

I am not making the case for isolationism at all. (Did you even read my post?)

Your simplistic viewpoint has no basis in reality.

1) Neither Arafat nor Osama control oil. The oil is controlled (with our help) by stable friendly governments (see #2).

2) The stable, friendly governemnts we have been supporting (i.e. keeping in power) are the very ones keeping the Middle East in the dark ages. Saudi Arabia, for example, continues to rely on our support.

Just 15 years ago, Saddam was one of the stable friendly governments we needed to protect "our" oil. We provided him both financial and military support.

3) The US actions is not leading the world toward either global unity or a global economy. As we will soon discover, open societies and freedom are sometimes not in the US's best interests.

4) Most of people in the Middle East are not Islamic fundamentalists. The vast majority of the people who are now against us don't care if the world is Islamic and certainly would not give a rats ass if you are Muslim or not.

They are fighting because they see us invading their culture. To much of the Middle East -- we are the bad guys. They can not allow us to win -- "ever". And in our current conflicts they have the upper hand right now (due to our incompetence).

We are fighting primarily against people that neither you are I would consider Islamic fundamentalists. Of course, the fundamentalists are taking advantage of this situation by trying to become the voice for the common man-- and with our help this strategy is working.

5) There is scant little evidence that the US is interested in open societies or freedom at all (other than the obvious propadanda). We have historically supported very repressive governements and have even helped overthrow democratically elected governments to keep a "friendly" government in place. Current history suggests we are continuing these practices.

Your cute little simplistic slogans that label "good guys" (the US) and "bad guys" (anyone who dares to oppose the US) contains a blaring logical inconsistancy.

How do we allow open societies and freedom to all when those you are calling "bad guys" do win-- an election.