How long will the war on terror last?

Post Reply New Topic

America hasn't defended itself in 70 years, since then they've been the proverbial kid with the stick, pissing off the rest of the world with endless invasions funded by an astronomical "Defense" budget stolen from (what I hope are relatively peace wanting) American citizens.

It goes back earlier then 70 years. Ever since the end of the US Civil War, America has been transitioning into an expansionist power. You can't expect to militarize a society and expect to just go back to being a rural, isolationist, mercantile nation

The war on terror proper probably ends with Afghanistan. Iraq is almost done. After that I doubt you'll see much activity beyond special operations that you won't hear much about.

The pro-democracy movement in the middle-east should be a real blow to terrorism. It's probably more significant to American safety than the war on terror. Finally these societies will have democratic pressure values. That will lessen the frustration of the street and make the mosques just one avenue for releasing pressure.

Why do you say so? Some dictatorships in the middle east are allied with the US and fighting al-Qaeda.

Isn't it called something more politically correct now? The threat is our way of life, for the extremists that participate in this kind of action. Not likely the threat will ever go away as long as there is extremism outside our borders or within our borders.

Sooner or later, countries will have to cooperate more than they do now to survive. Along the lines of what Vigilans stated.

I think this is part of the fear for those that are extreme in their beliefs; avoidance of change. A significant fear in our country also, I think.

Eventually the threat may be not as great, but like a Hurricane season with one storm, it is a bad season if you happen to be impacted by that one storm.

Since there is no actually enemy, then forever, or whenever the imperial bloodlust of the USA and Britain is quenched.

The people in those countries are repressed and not free to speak out against their own governments. The only outlet for aggression and frustration they have is the mosque. That can route their aggression into foreign adventures.

Using the dictators to oppose Al Qaeda was the best way to play the hand we were dealt. But there is no question that dictatorships exported resentment that couldnt be safely channelled at home. When the dictators werent subtly redirecting the people's rage against the West directly. Or sponsoring terrorism themselves.

I think it's wishful thinking to say the revolutions in middle east are liberal or even a pro-democracy movement. The US government is the reason a lot of these dictators have been able to stay in power as long as they have.

They are asking for freedom and the vote. I just have to take them at their words. Whether they can get from A to B without other forces taking over is an open question. I don't have a crystal ball.

But in general I think we are safer with Democracy in the middle-east.

So the US is blamed for both regime change and maintaining the status quo? Unfortunately the US government is forced to live in the real world. They can't just hold their breath and hide until democratic regimes spring up the world over. They need to pursue their national interests and make deals with extant national governments for security, trade, etc. As all nations have had to deal with these governments.

All action or inaction has some price associated with it. That's the world.

Terror will most likely always exist in our thoughts due to the nature of this harsh reality.

And after the U.S. has shot its wad (not too long from now) some other nasty government will do the same thing. It will choose its puppets and support them.

ruveyn

So -to fight terrorism we support corrupt unpopular dictators. Thus insuring that the said dictators come to be seen by their people as puppets of the USA, which fuels resement to the USA, which fuels terrorism.

Which we have to fight by- supporting corrupt oppressive dictators, who come to be seen by their people as puppets of the USA...

Nah, we just stay the hell out of their business. At least that way, our conscious can be clear of it and maybe not experience of the blowback that will inevitably comes come bite us in the you know what one day. Today's "pro-democracy" freedom fighters are tomorrows rogue leaders and terrorists. We've seen it all before.

Look at what's happening in the Ivory Coast right now. The UN's favored candidate in the contested election has started a civil war and has been massacring people by the hundreds as they advance on the capital to seize power with the assistance of UN airstrikes of course. Now how does that make sense? Didn't we just intervene in Libya because of him supposedly killing civilians? Is massacring civilians suddenly okay if a western backed leader does it? Not only do we stand back nothing, we support the guy!

Last edited by Jacoby on 05 Apr 2011, 5:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-Q7b-vHY3Q[/youtube]

I read a science fiction book last year set in 2098. The War on Terror was still going on then. Unfortunately this author has a slightly better record than most at getting his predictions right.

I was going to say something along the lines of "If we: 1) finally develop renewable alternative energy sources sufficiently to break our national dependence on foreign oil, 2) pass some regulatory legislation to stop letting the war profiteers and lobbyists from dictating when and where we go to war, and 3) elect some leadership with the strong political will necessary to force a reassessment of our national policy regarding Israel-- if we do all of those things, simultaneously, then maybe, just maybe the War on Terror will end."

I was going to say that, but then I again remembered the words of the late great Bill Hicks. We have a miserable track record when it comes to declaring war on abstract concepts-- the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, etc. (Hicks himself pointed out the hilarious absurdity of the idea that the US government was waging a war which people on drugs were winning.) The reason we fail at these endeavors is because these things really aren't "wars", per se-- and the object really isn't to win, but rather for the politicians to look like they're doing something useful and morally significant. The point is self-aggrandizement and personal gain. The "War on Terror" is the same. The "War on Terror" doesn't really exist. Don't misunderstand me-- there is an ideological divide between the West and Islamic fundamentalism, and we are currently involved in military interventions into three Muslim nations. But the way our politicians are framing these things and presenting them to the public is a distortion, because it's impossible to declare a war on an abstraction like "terror". The whole thing is an appeal to fear, predicated on false assertions designed to manipulate the American people into unquestioningly accepting the whims of our military-industrial complex. It's a fallacy of "begging the question", where the foregone assumption is that waging war is the best (or, indeed, the only) way to defuse the fundamentalists. It is the methodology employed by our politicians to direct our national discourse away from diplomatic options and back toward the more aggressive tactics that fatten their own wallets. Worse still, so long as bombing the region is seen as the only worthwhile solution to the problems that exist between us and the Middle East, our policies of aggression are only going to give Islamic fundamentalists a justification for violent reaction and perpetuate the conflict (and our politicians are actually counting on the cycle of hatred remaining unbroken, because it's necessary for them to continue profiting off of this con).

In other words, the War on Terror is never going to end, not as long as it continues to be an effective rhetorical device for rationalizing obscene profits for the defense and oil industries, and the politicians who represent them.