Is the "War on Terror" winnable?

[thewiseguy]

Today Senator Obama pledged that as president he would make Afghanistan a focal point of the war on terror. Now I have a question...

1- If we send more troops to Afghanistan will be able to completely eliminate the Taliban threat?

2- For how long will this troop presence be required?

3- What are our specific goals? When will be able to say the mission is accomplished and bring the troops home?

I am very afraid that for the right or wrong intentions, Afghanistan will turn to another Iraq for us. Unfortunately Afghanistan is very unlike Iraq. Their economy by far depends on Opium trade. They have no oil, they have no access to open waters. Their country has been plagued by many years of war and achieving peace and stability in that country is more like a dream.

Maybe just maybe we should have made it our goal to just go after Al Qaeda wherever they were instead of invading countries and concerning ourselves with the security nightmares.

[spag68]

1. First of all

You must realize, there is no war on terror. There is a war on terrorists. I take that bake kind of, bushco and all his crook friends want all of us to be terrorized, ans so try to put terror in our minds.

[Lautremont]

2. As much so as the "War on Grumpiness,"

or the "War on Nervousness," or that other major battle undertaken by Bushco, the "War on Common Sense, Decency and Historical Redemption."

[beac]

7. We need a "War on Waging War on Nouns"

I say, we declare unsubstantiated victory, Bush-style, against nouns and start carpet bombing the adjectives and adverbs.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Here's a start: Next time the intelligence community says Bin Laden is

planning an attack, listen to the motherfuckers. Would have saved one hell of a lot of bullshit.


Killing another round of hapless medieval peasants armed with soviet era muskets & mortar shells will prove nothing.

[spag68]

4. They could win half the war on terror

by giving out really strong sleeping pills.

[ChazII]

5. No but then I am cynical,

imho - the "wars" on poverty, illiteracy have not truly ended and this 'war' won't either. :(

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

6. Not really. Just enjoy your life, eat well, and have great sex.

And shoot immediate threats, with a shotgun. Rifles suck in close parameters.

[shadowknows69]

18. Sound advice

"I may be going to hell in a bucket baby, but at least I'm enjoying the ride."
-Bob Weir

[Alcibiades]

8. That's not a question

It's three questions.

1. Yes. IF we send half the troops we sent to Iraq to Afghanistan, we could defeat the Taliban. For a time. What happens afterwords is anyone's guess.

2. A couple of years.

3. The goals are up to the president and Congress, but I suggest defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Our goal should certainly not be what it has been in Iraq, which is basically to solve every last political, economic and social problem before we declare victory and leave. That last bit is a good suggestion.

[FreakinDJ]

9. China is winning

China is going all over 3rd world countries in Africa and Asia and building state of the art Hospitals.

Many are considered the best in those countries. Now they are a "Non-profit" just as our hospitals in this country are in that they only charge enough to pay their bills - meaning they pay for theirself. The peoples of those countries are very grateful for the Chinese and open the doors of their country to Chinese business.

Ya I know - its pedaling influence

But its working

[WinkyDink]

17. China is also going around the world buying farmland. China WILL rule the world.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42301

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. Didn't the USA fund the Taliban, that is Mr GW Bush gave them our money?

why?

The war on terror is a sham.

[salguine]

11. Of course not, the very idea is ridiculous. Of course, since the whole purpose

of "the War On Terror" is to funnel staggering sums of the taxpayers' money into the military-industrial complex, the powers that be are going to make good and goddamn sure it'll keep going indefinitely. Michael Moore was spot-on when he said "it's not meant to be won...it's meant to be continuous."

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. No, but we have to bomb somebody

or at least, I suspect that when all is said and done that is the "logic" of the situation.

[newmajority]

13. Everytime the Bush Crime Family declares "war" on something, that problem gets WORSE

The "war on drugs" and "war on terra" being prime examples.

But that's probably because the drug lords and the terraists have been working for the Bush Crime Family all along.

[Egnever]

14. No

There will always be terrorists.

[TheKentuckian]

15. The War on Terror

shows some signs of being a hoax. I'm thinking we might actually secure our borders, utilities, and food supply, if a truly deadly terrorist group was out to get us.

I'm inclined to believe there would be many more successful attacks. At least small suicide bomber type hits. There's almost no way such attacks could be stopped by a reasonably determined, organized, and at least somewhat funded group. I don't buy that we can stop them 100% for any number of months or years. These bombing happen all the time in Israel, who by most reasonable accounts have superior skills and resources in clandestine and counterinsurgency operations with a tighter society.

There are many reasons. Not the least being that other than the threats, fear mongering, and catch phrasing, they've totally forgotten to continue to play the game-Alerts, drills in the schools, random aircaps, etc.

[old mark]

16. Not meant to be winnable ;

any war with poorly defined "enemies" is tailor made for those polks who want to end our rights and set up a police state of our very own right here. Like Bush, maybe?

mark