The Widening Gyre: Ideological Warfare is Untenable

[WhiskeySykes]

So, yes, Trump’s critique of American generalship possesses merit, but whether he knows it or not, the question truly demanding his attention as the incoming commander-in-chief isn’t: Who should I hire (or fire) to fight my wars? Instead, far more urgent is: Does further war promise to solve any of my problems?

- Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)

In his article Winning, Bacevich evaluates America's top brass, but the Prof. Emeritus doesn't let them pass; and not, as he notes, for blundering in the war-room but for their stoney sleep through the truth apparent: this war is unwinnable. To combat a nation is possible, to combat an ideology is to confuse oneself. American society's deterioration into minority tribes is the symptom of true failure, to cope inside a struggle transcending her limits. Read: we've hit an immovable object. So what's the moral of this story? If you can't rationally define a war's end, you will not win the war. Ever. To carry on the same path is just hubris.

[Himster]

Yes, surrender to terrorism. Set a precedent in stone that terrorism is an undefeatable tool for any ideologue.
At this point admitting defeat/retreat may be worse than continuing the present course.

[fkizz]

Terrorism is a method, not an ideology.

[antaeus]

Terrorism is a method, not an ideology.

Therein lies the issue. Because terrorism is often treated as an ideology, as evidenced by Himster's comment.

As soon as politicians made it about a war on terror, it became the forever war against everyone.

[WhiskeySykes]

As soon as politicians made it about a war on terror, it became the forever war against everyone.

Which justifies an eternal surveillance state and fans paranoia among civilians.

I can't count the times I've heard to the contrary, "We already had a police state." Ok, and I'm a pack-a-day smoker, so I might as well smoke 3? I've blown 1000 dollars on the slots, why not 10,000?

A war needs boundaries and goals, not just battles won leading nowhere, or it becomes unjustified.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Which justifies an eternal surveillance state and fans paranoia among civilians.

I can't count the times I've heard to the contrary, "We already had a police state." Ok, and I'm a pack-a-day smoker, so I might as well smoke 3? I've blown 1000 dollars on the slots, why not 10,000?

A war needs boundaries and goals, not just battles won leading nowhere, or it becomes unjustified.

The USA/NATO is capable of winning just about any tactical firefight, skirmish, or minor operation on the battlefield.

But, as Sun Tzu said, "strategy without tactics is the slowest road to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

We have no overall strategy to bring the "war on terror" to a successful conclusion, but we are not going to "lose" in the sense of a military defeat, because this is a different type of war.

As Orwell said, "the war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous."