Will we (The west) win by attrition?

[Ahiga]

It appears that for some, the war on Islamic Extremism must be fought like any other war. Stay the course is a common saying by the Republicans, and while there is validity in the statement, it ironically seems to lend itself also to an arguement against their actions in the war against islamic extremism. "Stay the Course" in Iraq means to keep the Islamic Fundementalists from seizing the country (Though they may end up doing so regardless), yet "stay the course' in their style of course in the war on terror means to do as we have been for 6 years, and attempt to fight Islamic Extremism like we fought Fascism. We outlasted Nazism and Communism, but will we be able to outlast Islamic Fundementalism as a global or regional power, forcing it back into a weak and ineffective local power (The way Nazism and Christian fundementalism and to a degree communism has been)?

It's easy to say we wouldn't. Islam's been around for 1400 years, it won't cease. Yet up until Israel's creation, we had less of an issue with religious fundementalists and more an issue with islamic nations (With religion piggeybacking political and economic threats). Certainly they are capable of nationalist governments, Turkey is an example, and Egypt has struggled with it. Fundementalism is a recent devil and one which seems to have a source in a number of things beyond just the religion or just the influence of the west.

But the simple question is - will staying the course in attempting to bleed out Extremism from Islam like bleeding out Nazism and Fascism let us win in the end? Or will we need to go for the root of the issue, as we did with Communist Russia? ((I say that because while we did financially bleed out the Soviets, it seemed also to be that western attributes won out over Soviet attributes. The people were inclined to the West's over the East's. I might be wrong))

[Armfelt]

Jordan is a better example than Turkey, since Turkey opresses Kurds.

I think staying on course with the methods "we" use currently will make us bleed.

[King Sakkeus]

There is nothing to win or lose. The whole War On Terror is mostly just made up and sometimes taken so far that people get ideas that this really is about survival.

[CaptainCernick]

The attitude of "The West vs. Islam" is entirely wrong and will (is already) turning this into a conflict that won't be solved. Ever.

[dr0p]

There is nothing to win or lose. The whole War On Terror is mostly just made up and sometimes taken so far that people get ideas that this really is about survival.

Easy for you to say when you're not in danger whenever you walk in a resturant or a bus station.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Easy for you to say when you're not in danger whenever you walk in a resturant or a bus station.

Are you?

[Nihil]

Attrition is the gameplan of the extremists, and is what they do best. They plan to win by getting killed. The soft westerners can't compete in attrition with people who genuinely enjoy dying.

What's more, the terrorists are getting exactly what they want every time they do something provocative - overbearing and disproportionate reactions that get civilians caught in the crossfire (and that means more sympathy and recruits for terrorists).

So that answer is no. The longer the idiotic self-defeating policies of the "Duh...War on Terror... :tooth: " continue, the stronger the terrorists get.

[dr0p]

Are you?

Yes. I live in Israel.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The west isn't willing to fight a war of attrition. Too many dead, too much money spent. Not worth it.

[Locky]

Oh no, not the war on snow-flakes. Every war of attrition the west has fought since WW2, has resulted in massive failure. The question should be "will we(hummanity), pull our heads, out've our arses?".

[Syron]

You speak like somehow there is a quick method and attrition isn't necessary.

Attrition may or may not be effective but it makes no difference if it is the only method.

[removeduser_487563287433]

You speak like somehow there is a quick method and attrition isn't necessary.

Attrition may or may not be effective but it makes no difference if it is the only method.

If that is the only method then the war on terror is already lost.

[Blokhoofd67]

If that is the only method then the war on terror is already lost.

The bloody ''War on Terror'' - Silly name it is, it sounds like there's been a time when we actually liked terrorists - was already lost before it begun. Current methods don't work. Iraq is turning into a second Vietnam(You wanna bet the Americans are gonna pull out in a few years and some bad guy coming to power?) the UN just fails against terrorists. I firmly agreed with Israel when they invaded Libanon, all the UN does it take on resolutions like the bloody People's Front of Judaea and send so-called peacekeeping missions. ''We'll lead the mission in Lebanon!'' says the French and promise to send the astounding amount of 400 soldiers. Really, you're not gonna keep Hezbollah out with 400 men. Especially if they're not really supposed to shoot..more like..keep the peace. Dunno what that is though.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The bloody ''War on Terror'' - Silly name it is, it sounds like there's been a time when we actually liked terrorists - was already lost before it begun. Current methods don't work. Iraq is turning into a second Vietnam(You wanna bet the Americans are gonna pull out in a few years and some bad guy coming to power?) the UN just fails against terrorists. I firmly agreed with Israel when they invaded Libanon, all the UN does it take on resolutions like the bloody People's Front of Judaea and send so-called peacekeeping missions. ''We'll lead the mission in Lebanon!'' says the French and promise to send the astounding amount of 400 soldiers. Really, you're not gonna keep Hezbollah out with 400 men. Especially if they're not really supposed to shoot..more like..keep the peace. Dunno what that is though.

You seem to want to listen to the sensationalism and not the truth. The French have promised more men soon. It has to begin with something though.

[Ahiga]

It's not the only method. At least, while we should keep up resistance to them, it shouldn't be the method we use to try and win, like its a world war one stalemate. Why not go at the root of the source of why terrorism has sparked up in the second half of the 20th century? Be less heavy handed in our backing of Israel, and actually try to work with the Palestinians and keep up a dialogue with other Muslim nations instead of playing BS favorites (We treat Iran as the worst of human rights violations and Islamic fundementalism...and are cozy with the Saudis?). These are thoughts a regular american has, and surely those in power can comprehend better ways to combat the fuel which feeds terrorism? We can't and wont submit (So please dont try and say that is what I am telling us to do), but why not try and foster Western ideals like we managed to do in Communist Bloc nations? We invaded Vietnam, and they remain 'communist', almost as though to spite us. Yet what happened in the Eastern European nations where our influence permeated and not our bullets? What happened in the Soviet Union?

Why deal with the symptoms instead of whats causing them? The ideal of spreading democracy is a admirable one by the Neo Cons. The methods they choose to bring that about is not admirable. It's taken democratic states, on their own, very long to develop into them, our own european ancestors took time, as did the Turks, and before the affair with the Shah, Iran seemed on their way too.

[Syron]

If that is the only method then the war on terror is already lost.

Well I’m all ears, suggest another sensible one.

Well that is certainly unfortunate for you, but at the same time it is an admission that your average American is practically free from any fear of terrorist attack.

That’s the whole point of a terrorist attack, it causes fear among the targets by just it’s very threat. It doesn’t have to actually happen.

It's not the only method. At least, while we should keep up resistance to them, it shouldn't be the method we use to try and win, like its a world war one stalemate. Why not go at the root of the source of why terrorism has sparked up in the second half of the 20th century? Be less heavy handed in our backing of Israel, and actually try to work with the Palestinians and keep up a dialogue with other Muslim nations instead of playing BS favorites (We treat Iran as the worst of human rights violations and Islamic fundementalism...and are cozy with the Saudis?). These are thoughts a regular american has, and surely those in power can comprehend better ways to combat the fuel which feeds terrorism? We can't and wont submit (So please dont try and say that is what I am telling us to do), but why not try and foster Western ideals like we managed to do in Communist Bloc nations? We invaded Vietnam, and they remain 'communist', almost as though to spite us. Yet what happened in the Eastern European nations where our influence permeated and not our bullets? What happened in the Soviet Union?

Be less heavy handed in support of our backing of Israel? Have you ever considered we support it because it’s right? It is the right of any sovereign nation to support who it wants. Terrorists have no right to decide that.

Our countries do try to work with the Palestinians but they can’t stop their aggression. Israel left Gaza and yet still their militants step up their action there. Really questions what really they want.

Yes we are friendly with the Saudi’s because while they’re by no means good when you consider the neighborhood they’re not that bad. I actually do question how friendly we are with them but what are you suggesting? Deride every country in the Middle East and put sanctions on them all? Some it is better to confront, some not. And the west does constantly put pressure on the regime’s it does support to reform. The only reasons why there have been elections in some places is because of western pressure.

Indeed we do have to foster western ideals, what we are dealing with is a backlash to that so I fail to see what you are calling for.

Why deal with the symptoms instead of whats causing them? The ideal of spreading democracy is a admirable one by the Neo Cons. The methods they choose to bring that about is not admirable. It's taken democratic states, on their own, very long to develop into them, our own european ancestors took time, as did the Turks, and before the affair with the Shah, Iran seemed on their way too.

Methods they choose to do them? I’m still waiting for your magic solution.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well I’m all ears, suggest another sensible one.

Tackling the causes of terrorism.

That’s the whole point of a terrorist attack, it causes fear among the targets by just it’s very threat. It doesn’t have to actually happen.

Well then it is a sign of stupidity and herd mentality to be afraid. I did not stop using the London Underground after the attacks and nor did I feel afraid to do so.

[Ahiga]

Be less heavy handed in support of our backing of Israel? Have you ever considered we support it because it’s right? It is the right of any sovereign nation to support who it wants. Terrorists have no right to decide that.

Does being right really matter a damn bit, when the rest of the world thinks you are wrong? Does having your own people back you and say you were right matter if the rest of the world, the people a superpower like us (and not a nation like Israel) need to deal with, feel otherwise? We back Israel for many reasons, but not a minor one being they represent our interests in the regions and offer a Western style of nation. They are our buddies in the region, just as Syria or Hezbollah is Irans. If we simply support them because 'it is right', then i guess every war fought by ourselves were for clear cut, high-moral ground issues, and not simple economics or political aspects. That's silly. We can still support Israel, but if we are expecting the Muslims to look at it in any respectible light, we need to act as an intermediate between Israel and palestine the way previous Presidents did, and not just blindly back Israel no matter what they do. We have a problem dealing with terrorist governments but not with a semi-theocratic tyranny like Saudi Arabia?

Our countries do try to work with the Palestinians but they can’t stop their aggression. Israel left Gaza and yet still their militants step up their action there. Really questions what really they want.

O Rly? We helped stop aggression between Egypt and Israel. Why can't we do it with palestine? Israel may have 'left' gaza but still offer harsh scruiny to any palestinians leaving. Even if they didn't, do you expect conflicts to end neatly, lickidly split? If Israel and their neighbors are going to start full fledged wars based on a single incidient, there will never be any hope for peace.

Yes we are friendly with the Saudi’s because while they’re by no means good when you consider the neighborhood they’re not that bad.

Better than Jordan? Egypt? Lebanon? Hell, maybe the Syrian's are less intolerant of women. I know that at least one of the Sattelite Arabian Nations even allowed it's women to train as soldiers (While adhering to rather strict enforcements of Islamic culture towards women). What neighbors are you referring to, Iran and Iraq? Women can actually run for positions of power in Iran. Can they do that in Saudi Arabia, where they are enforced to be with a male relative whereever they go? Iran might do that, but they might not.

I actually do question how friendly we are with them but what are you suggesting? Deride every country in the Middle East and put sanctions on them all?

Perhaps have a less sketchy portfolio of why we claim we invade a nation like iraq when we have no problem supporting regimes which are stark contrasts from what we are saying we hope to create in iraq. What I am suggesting is actually like what we do with the Saudis. Be friendly. Be 'intimate'. Treat them like nations of Europe and Asia and trade with them and try to slowly diffuse their theocratic cultures and to encourage democracy by way of diffusion and political 'nudging'. Not invade or put sanctions on them or bomb them. If they or an extension of them (AL qaeda in Afghanistan) attack us? Then yes, be rough, destroy them and create a democracy in their wake. But do not go at changing the entire region with a butcher's knife.

Some it is better to confront, some not. And the west does constantly put pressure on the regime’s it does support to reform. The only reasons why there have been elections in some places is because of western pressure.

- Exactly what we should be doing. Not invading fellow Muslim nations and thus turning off those in other countries from western ideals, nor interfering in a negative way (See iran) and thus encoruaging Theocracy instead of democracy.

Indeed we do have to foster western ideals, what we are dealing with is a backlash to that so I fail to see what you are calling for.

- Why are they backlashing? Ask yourself that. Why would American's be turned off by a movie set from the eyes of the Muslims in the crusades? Why might they be turned off from middle eastern music, or why might they be turned off from reading their kids 'a thousand and one nights'? Why might us Americans, in these hypothetical situations, shrug off or distance ourselves from cultural things from the Middle east? Why - Because we feel we are in a conflict with extremism from the region, and some are put off from accepting things from that region (Not myself. I still love middle eastern music and culture).

Why they are backlashing against our western ideals is because they do not like us. Women in Iran during the revolution chose to wear the 'Burka' because it represented Islam and their people, and chose to wear that as a form of defiance against jeans and items which represented the west (and they came to regret it! I can quote passages from "Nine parts of Desire, The hidden world of islamic women, by Geraldine Brooks" if you wish). Muslims felt that nationalism failed against Israel and against whatever their wishes, and decided to give Theocracy a try (Again, a paraphrase of Geraldine's book's passages. I can quote if need be).

They don't want to embrace something which comes across as negative to them, because it is associated with the nation which Invaded Iraq and blindly supports Israel without regards to Palestine (The way previous presidents held talks between the two at Camp David. I don't believe Clinton is the only one. I think some sort of peace accord was made by Egypt and Israel under either Reagan or Bush Sr?). We don't come across as the liberators of Kuwait more than we do the crusaders of Iraq. So they are backlashing because they do not like what we have done. Some of what we have done is right. Some of it is wrong. The world isn't black and white.

Methods they choose to do them? I’m still waiting for your magic solution.

If I did, they would be giving me the nobel peace prize, and I'd have a dozen Lebanese and Israeli girls hanging off my arms. I don't have one. Nobody does right now. Especially nobody in power. We need to help bring about a fostering of these solutions and ideas. Talking. I've felt as passionate as the Palestinians on points I've held in group situations, and only came to change that opinion once we had lots of talks. Even then I might not have lost it, but it was impossible to have had me moved if it wasnt for the talks.

The best hope is to have iraq become a successful democracy, which is a chance that diminishes every day. Lebanon had great potential, but has also suffered thanks to Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and Israel. If Iraq fails and we attack Iran, we can kiss democracy goodbye for a good length of time.

[Isnogood]

Fundementalism is a recent devil and one which seems to have a source in a number of things beyond just the religion or just the influence of the west.

That is exactly right (and quite in contrast to the preceding sentences).What most people with just a passing and superficial interest in the matter fail to notice, is that the islamistic aspect is relatively new, while the root causes of most conflicts are not.As an example ,the Palestinian struggle against Israel is a purely territorial conflict and most agents of the conflict's pursuit, like the PLO have been secular in their orientation in the past.
The same with the ME in general, Islam as a political orientation in the modern sense,Islamism, has not been on the stage since the Islamic Revolution 1979 in Iran, while the "arab legion" fighting in Afghanistan did its part of circulating the very same ideas in the sunni part of the ME.

But the simple question is - will staying the course in attempting to bleed out Extremism from Islam like bleeding out Nazism and Fascism let us win in the end? Or will we need to go for the root of the issue, as we did with Communist Russia? ((I say that because while we did financially bleed out the Soviets, it seemed also to be that western attributes won out over Soviet attributes. The people were inclined to the West's over the East's. I might be wrong))

There again comes up the question who and what are we fighting against (or vice versa) ?Fact is, that the West has had a hand of a great deal in making and unmaking nations and governments of and in the ME, which is and has been largely ignored by the wider public here, but still very much influences the perception of the West in the region.
To battle the phenomena of the ideology of Islamism at first a political strategy has to be conceived to battle the root causes in accordance with the pursuit of our interests, only then the instruments to achieve these goals should be determined and military intervention is but one of them and not the most preeminent at that, military force should stay the ultmia ratio.

To conclude, a "war of attrition" implying the combatting of militant Islamism by primarily military means is unerringly doomed to fail.It doesn not only fail to target the actual "enemy", which is the ideology itself and therefore immaterial -actually even gaining strength proportionately to the amount of military force used against it- but as asymmetrical warfare also implies an inherent asymmetrical drain of resources and lastly, because of our obvious dependence on the stability of the region such a victory is impossible.

[Holger Danske]

If the west really wanted to do it, we could easily destroy the ME for good... Problem with us is that we have become too tolerant and humane in our methods when we deal with a problem.