Are We Losing the War on Terror?

[Exarch]

iraq is a quagmire
afghanistan hasnt changed, even with coalition troops
increase in resentment against the west, primarily the USA
are we losing the war on terror?
a war without end?

[Joker85]

No.

[Broken Lance]

The problem with the war on terror in places such as Iraq is a lack of civil
support, (hearts and minds) the second most crucial step in any guerilla/
counter-insurgency. Due to extremist use of propaganda for a so called
'Holy War' the USA and other are seen as crusaders to the muslim populace,
that has been swimming in propaganda. Also heavily anti-american views
in the media don't help much with overall situation. If USA had full support
of the population this would be a different. Also this is a prime example of
what happens when you let politicians fight wars instead of the very people
that have painstaking spent their entire lives training for (generals)

Also heavy media coverage means there's always someone looking over the
shoulder of the soldiers in Iraq/Afganistan. Imagine it like trying to take a
leak in public then suddenly 100's of tv camera's swarm you, labeling you
'evil'

[Exarch]

The problem with the war on terror in places such as Iraq is a lack of civil
support, (hearts and minds) the second most crucial step in any guerilla/
counter-insurgency. Due to extremist use of propaganda for a so called
'Holy War' the USA and other are seen as crusaders to the muslim populace,
that has been swimming in propaganda. Also heavily anti-american views
in the media don't help much with overall situation. If USA had full support
of the population this would be a different. Also this is a prime example of
what happens when you let politicians fight wars instead of the very people
that have painstaking spent their entire lives training for (generals)

Also heavy media coverage means there's always someone looking over the
shoulder of the soldiers in Iraq/Afganistan. Imagine it like trying to take a
leak in public then suddenly 100's of tv camera's swarm you, labeling you
'evil'

i'm under the impression that what we see on the news regarding iraq is heavily censored (self censored or otherwise) in favour of the troops compared to the napalm drenched viets ppl would witness back in the 60s.

in the past, the only way to subdue a foreign conquered enemy was to (yes), sack, pillage exterminate and set such horrifying examples as mass crucifixion, mass blindings, mass impalements to get your message across.
in this day and age, we cant do such things; in this day and age, we have to take the public opinion into consideration as all democracies are.

[Broken Lance]

i'm under the impression that what we see on the news regarding iraq is heavily censored (self censored or otherwise) in favour of the troops compared to the napalm drenched viets ppl would witness back in the 60s.

in the past, the only way to subdue a foreign conquered enemy was to (yes), sack, pillage exterminate and set such horrifying examples as mass crucifixion, mass blindings, mass impalements to get your message across.
in this day and age, we cant do such things; in this day and age, we have to take the public opinion into consideration as all democracies are.

Well yes, any modern war would be censored to an extent., but when i
watch the news and have talked with others about it, all we here is how
it's turning into a 'quagmire' or another 'vietnam' (<--- i hate this comparison) It seems positive news about the war is few and far between.

But seriously, hearts and minds, the key to victory. (but uniting the Iraqi
will prove to be quite a challenge...which is also another key to victory)

[Tiwaz]

The problem with the war on terror in places such as Iraq is a lack of civil
support, (hearts and minds) the second most crucial step in any guerilla/
counter-insurgency. Due to extremist use of propaganda for a so called
'Holy War' the USA and other are seen as crusaders to the muslim populace,
that has been swimming in propaganda. Also heavily anti-american views
in the media don't help much with overall situation. If USA had full support
of the population this would be a different. Also this is a prime example of
what happens when you let politicians fight wars instead of the very people
that have painstaking spent their entire lives training for (generals)

Also heavy media coverage means there's always someone looking over the
shoulder of the soldiers in Iraq/Afganistan. Imagine it like trying to take a
leak in public then suddenly 100's of tv camera's swarm you, labeling you
'evil'

Do you think iraqis need media to tell them they are occupied? Or about bad stuff taking place. You are kind of foolish here, you think iraqis know about war same way you do... Through television. That is major problem some americans appear to have in understanding situation.

They live in that war. Their country is occupied, it is ravaged by low intensity civil war. There are foreign soldiers controlling their country, operating and causing more deaths.

They do not need media, they live in it. That is what makes this whole charade so pathetic.

Win hearts and minds? You can't do that if next day your guys blow up houses and end up killing civilians. Knowledge of misbehaviour/mistakes of US troops in Iraq is not dependant on media when it comes to iraqis. Grapevine is more than sufficient. And every "collateral damage" has family and friends who will want payback.

Only way to reduce that problem would be to seriously stomp on way US army does it's job. But that would end up restricting troops even more, increase losss and would lead to other kinds of problems.

Whole problem is... You can't fight terrorism in conventional warfare. It's same as declaring war on earthquakes.

[Heinz Guderian]

Whole problem is... You can't fight terrorism in conventional warfare. It's same as declaring war on earthquakes.

I agree with Tiwaz on this. We need a political solution to underlying problems.

[Holger Danske]

no, but we lost the war of terror - Fracking Hippies in Washington...

[Каие]

The objective of the war is too limit terrorist attacks worldwide and destroy the terrorists.
1. There are more terrorists now than ever before, and their sympathy has risen million fold and their supporters widespread around the world.
2. There have been more terrorist attacks around the world than ever before.


The US war on terror might be doing good, with not that many US terrorists and no terrorist attacks on the US.
But the War on terror was declared by the US on behalf of everyone and everyone else has suffered.

[Dr. Croccer]

Iraq is a part of the war on terror? I believe the foundations for Iraq were laid long before such a term was even invented.

[Broken Lance]

Iraq is a part of the war on terror? I believe the foundations for Iraq were laid long before such a term was even invented.

True, yet, terrorists and insurgents have been added into the picture (Iraq)
so i guess you could now call it apart of the war on terror, but also your right,
the seeds of this conflict were sown long ago.

[Rapax]

A more interesting question would be how exactly do you win the war on terror? Not that I think that anyone ever bothered to define clear goals for that.

[Broken Lance]

I honestly don't know, i'm not some military expert on the subject but i could
guess.

Make it hard for said terror groups to be supplied

again, hearts and minds

a global cooperative crackdown (in a perfect world maybe)

[Garbarsardar]

A more interesting question would be how exactly do you win the war on terror? Not that I think that anyone ever bothered to define clear goals for that.

See, dear Rapax, this is a complex issue and simple minded persons like us are not properly equipped to seek such answers.

However I would venture to say that the war on terror is intertwined with the war on drugs. The key concept as practice has demonstrated is to finance both sides: e.g. Colombian druglords (or Afghan Opium producers) and the D.E.A, or the US army and backwards militaristic regimes that inevitably create terrorists like "our best friend" Saudi Arabia.

As you understand it's like bet spreading which leads to what can only be described as a win-win situation.

[Dr. Croccer]

The terrorists only got power after Saddam died and it's more like a civil conflict and a power vacuum than a terrorist campaign.

A more interesting question would be how exactly do you win the war on terror? Not that I think that anyone ever bothered to define clear goals for that.

With the IRON FIST OF LIBERATION!

[Exarch]

we'll win the war on terror, the same way we wont the war on drugs...wait

[Chlodwig I.]

we'll win the war on terror, the same way we wont the war on drugs...wait

:hmmm:

I remember reading in an newspaper article that the production
of the heroinplant(don't know the english name)
is on its all time high in Afghanistan.

[Shaun]

How can we really be winning or losing the war on terror?

[Joker85]

How can we really be winning or losing the war on terror?

If there are less people willing and/or able to carry out acts of terrorism against us and our allies now than there were before the war began, we are winning, if not, we are losing.

Whether they are unable/willing to because we have won their hearts and minds, or because they are dead/captured, it does not matter.

The secondary goal if that fails is to ensure that those who we are unable to kill/capture/convert do not succeed in carrying out those attacks.

The 3rd goal if that fails is minimizing the damage they are able to cause by increasing our response and rescue capabilities and denying them the use of WMDs that would greatly increase the damage they are capable of inflicting.

I look at it similar to when we were dealing with the Klan in the US. The Klan still exists and is still a threat, but hearts and minds combined with aggressive acts by the government have greatly limited their ability to do violence against those they disagree with. If in 1960 we had declared war on them, moving from them the free roam terror force they were then to the impotent joke they are seen as now would have been what I consider victory. They will always be around, as will their ideology, but they will never be as destructive or dangerous as they were for their first hundred or so years in existence.

[Rapax]

If there are less people willing and/or able to carry out acts of terrorism against us and our allies now than there were before the war began, we are winning, if not, we are losing.

You will measure that how exactly?