Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

joshbaumgartner · 08-30-2005, 10:39 AM

To win the war on terror, the US and others in the West must achieve a set of objectives. The terrorists’ ability to strike at will globally must be neutralized. Political institutions must be free of the influence of terrorist violence—in particular democracy must be allowed to flourish without violence determining the peoples’ will. Additionally, a world-wide sense of repugnance must be fostered towards terrorist tactics, to deter organizations from resorting to them. These are each difficult challenges, but within the capacity of the West to achieve.

Terrorist organizations are not able to strike at will globally right now, but instead are quite limited in what they can do. Yes, their attacks come as a shock and surprise to everyone when they are successful, but were they able to conduct more attacks, there is no reason why they shouldn’t. Thus, we have to conclude that terrorists are extremely limited in their ability to strike globally. While the argument can be made that their capability has grown recently, even this is not an indication that they have freedom of operations. Surges in terrorist activity may not indicate ‘desperate final throes’ as some leaders may intone, but they also don’t represent a swing in momentum, just as the Battle of the Bulge didn’t mean the war was suddenly going Hitler’s way. Thus, on this operational side of the war on terror, we are actually doing quite well. Terror will never be eliminated, even of the international variety, but it can be contained. Given the rather limited use of international terror, one must consider that we are indeed winning on this front. However, it is not wise to limit assessment to the military and law enforcement side of the equation, as terrorism has a clear political element to it.

Terrorist victories such as 9/11 and Iraq have given the terrorists too much hand in determining the policies of government, or at least influencing them greatly. However, the loss of Afghanistan was a great blow to our opponents, with them losing much of what they had fought to instill there. The terrorists were unable or unwilling to launch a widely feared attack on the US during its elections. Was this because terrorists had been suppressed in their capabilities, or because they couldn’t be sure to get the right result, they way that 9/11 had paid off for them? We may never know, but we can be certain that in the US especially, as time has passed since 9/11, Americans are more aware of how a terrorist attack can create a domino effect in government policy, and are better prepared to resist such effects with future attacks. While not as clear-cut as the operational side of the war, it is still clear that we are at the least gaining the upper hand on controlling the political side of the war, and more clear that terrorism is not able to make the kind of long-term political changes that it needs to achieve its goals.

We should also consider the terrorists goals, to compare to our own and determine who is more reasonably in a position to win. As noted, our goals are limiting the ability of terrorists to threaten both safety of citizens and the sanctity of our political systems. Their objectives are not merely opposites of ours. They desire a withdrawal of America from being a global player, or as they would put it: oppressor. In its place they want the rise of fundamentalist regimes which will have complete autonomy from world influence on their behavior. Local symbols of Western influence such as Israel, our presence in Iraq, and many of the current Arab leaders, become tactical targets. It is far from likely that any of these objectives can be met. America will not withdraw from its international position, and even if it were to in the future should its strength wane, it will be replaced by another foreign power, equally unpalatable to the fundamentalists. Even the establishment of fundamentalist states has not been greatly successful, with such entities short-lived—having to face reform from within (Iran) or destruction from the outside (Taliban). The concept of uniting a wide swath of territory under fundamentalist government is simply not feasible.

It is pointless to consider only the momentum of the moment when asking who is winning. What matters is not who appears to be on the offensive, or who appears to be making mistakes, but instead who is going to be able to accomplish their objectives—ultimately, who will be winning at the end. Thus while headlines may make it appear that we are losing because of the attacks by terrorists, and while it is true that severe mistakes have been made by our leadership, there is simply no denying that we remain in the dominant position versus the terrorist organizations when it comes to achieving what we have set out to do.

Terrorists have little hope of ever fulfilling their goals, no matter what victories they may obtain. Meanwhile, the US is not terribly far from achieving its own objectives. There will always be local terror, sometimes by ‘freedom fighters’, and sometimes by ‘governments’, and sometimes this will be effective in making or preventing a political movement. But international terror is much more limited, and we are in a much better position to tackle it. With better leadership, America will be able to suppress international terrorism to the point where it is little more than an anomaly, and wholly incapable of achieving real success.

We will need to change our strategy some, and make adjustments as we go, but we are in position to achieve our goal of marginalizing global terrorism and neutralizing its effect on the world’s politics. Terrorists on the other hand have little hope of ever achieving their goals.

It is quite clear that we are winning the war on terror.

08-30-2005, 10:39 AM	#8 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	To win the war on terror, the US and others in the West must achieve a set of objectives. The terrorists’ ability to strike at will globally must be neutralized. Political institutions must be free of the influence of terrorist violence—in particular democracy must be allowed to flourish without violence determining the peoples’ will. Additionally, a world-wide sense of repugnance must be fostered towards terrorist tactics, to deter organizations from resorting to them. These are each difficult challenges, but within the capacity of the West to achieve. Terrorist organizations are not able to strike at will globally right now, but instead are quite limited in what they can do. Yes, their attacks come as a shock and surprise to everyone when they are successful, but were they able to conduct more attacks, there is no reason why they shouldn’t. Thus, we have to conclude that terrorists are extremely limited in their ability to strike globally. While the argument can be made that their capability has grown recently, even this is not an indication that they have freedom of operations. Surges in terrorist activity may not indicate ‘desperate final throes’ as some leaders may intone, but they also don’t represent a swing in momentum, just as the Battle of the Bulge didn’t mean the war was suddenly going Hitler’s way. Thus, on this operational side of the war on terror, we are actually doing quite well. Terror will never be eliminated, even of the international variety, but it can be contained. Given the rather limited use of international terror, one must consider that we are indeed winning on this front. However, it is not wise to limit assessment to the military and law enforcement side of the equation, as terrorism has a clear political element to it. Terrorist victories such as 9/11 and Iraq have given the terrorists too much hand in determining the policies of government, or at least influencing them greatly. However, the loss of Afghanistan was a great blow to our opponents, with them losing much of what they had fought to instill there. The terrorists were unable or unwilling to launch a widely feared attack on the US during its elections. Was this because terrorists had been suppressed in their capabilities, or because they couldn’t be sure to get the right result, they way that 9/11 had paid off for them? We may never know, but we can be certain that in the US especially, as time has passed since 9/11, Americans are more aware of how a terrorist attack can create a domino effect in government policy, and are better prepared to resist such effects with future attacks. While not as clear-cut as the operational side of the war, it is still clear that we are at the least gaining the upper hand on controlling the political side of the war, and more clear that terrorism is not able to make the kind of long-term political changes that it needs to achieve its goals. We should also consider the terrorists goals, to compare to our own and determine who is more reasonably in a position to win. As noted, our goals are limiting the ability of terrorists to threaten both safety of citizens and the sanctity of our political systems. Their objectives are not merely opposites of ours. They desire a withdrawal of America from being a global player, or as they would put it: oppressor. In its place they want the rise of fundamentalist regimes which will have complete autonomy from world influence on their behavior. Local symbols of Western influence such as Israel, our presence in Iraq, and many of the current Arab leaders, become tactical targets. It is far from likely that any of these objectives can be met. America will not withdraw from its international position, and even if it were to in the future should its strength wane, it will be replaced by another foreign power, equally unpalatable to the fundamentalists. Even the establishment of fundamentalist states has not been greatly successful, with such entities short-lived—having to face reform from within (Iran) or destruction from the outside (Taliban). The concept of uniting a wide swath of territory under fundamentalist government is simply not feasible. It is pointless to consider only the momentum of the moment when asking who is winning. What matters is not who appears to be on the offensive, or who appears to be making mistakes, but instead who is going to be able to accomplish their objectives—ultimately, who will be winning at the end. Thus while headlines may make it appear that we are losing because of the attacks by terrorists, and while it is true that severe mistakes have been made by our leadership, there is simply no denying that we remain in the dominant position versus the terrorist organizations when it comes to achieving what we have set out to do. Terrorists have little hope of ever fulfilling their goals, no matter what victories they may obtain. Meanwhile, the US is not terribly far from achieving its own objectives. There will always be local terror, sometimes by ‘freedom fighters’, and sometimes by ‘governments’, and sometimes this will be effective in making or preventing a political movement. But international terror is much more limited, and we are in a much better position to tackle it. With better leadership, America will be able to suppress international terrorism to the point where it is little more than an anomaly, and wholly incapable of achieving real success. We will need to change our strategy some, and make adjustments as we go, but we are in position to achieve our goal of marginalizing global terrorism and neutralizing its effect on the world’s politics. Terrorists on the other hand have little hope of ever achieving their goals. It is quite clear that we are winning the war on terror.