The End of the War on Terror

[cgannon64]

The War on Terror will end when all of the Islamic world is modernized.

I'm wondering whether this goal will be made impossible (except in the super-long-term) by the oil crash.

 

[JollyRoger]

When America gets into a real war.

 

[blackheart]

When we run out of money.

 

[JollyRoger]

When we run out of money.

When we run out of our grandkids' money.

 

[Red Door]

The War on Terror is over, the government is now calling it the "Long War."

 

[The Yankee]

"Long, Hard Slog" doesn't do it anymore? Ah, feels so retro.

I'd love to see an actual plan for winning this war actually. All we have are "hearts and minds" being thrown about.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

when the war on hermits becomes popular.

 

[cgannon64]

This is a good article about the War on Terror (and presumably an even better book).

I won't into my feelings about its assertion from a religious point of view, but from a historical view, it seems like a very good analysis.

 

[Phlegmak]

The War on Terror is over, the government is now calling it the "Long War."

I forgot about that! The War on Terror actually is over; it's now called "The Global Struggle Against Extremism."

 

[bhsup]

Why the blind faith in your government?

It's nothing to do with blind faith, that's just how it works. When did WWII end? When our government made the enemy sign a peace treaty which said the war was over. When did Vietnam end? When we withdrew and the government basically said we were done there.

Since there is no legitimate enemy to negotiate with, our government is the only one with a voice as to when it is done and finished. So whenever it says the war on terror is over, then I guess it's over.

Till the next war on terror.

 

[nonconformist]

So who's this "Terror" guy who'se gonna signa peace treaty.

A war on Terror is never gonna end.
Terrorism is a tactic.
A tactic that is the subject of semantical discussion. I consider certain western countries to be terrorists.
I could be a terrorist.
Today I am a normal person.
Tonight I could be filling bottles with petrol.
Tomorrow, I could be throwing them at police stations.

 

[bhsup]

So who's this "Terror" guy who'se gonna signa peace treaty.

That's why it is just "my government". With nobody to negotiate with, it's totally up to us to decide when to stop. Sucks to be the terrorists, but maybe they should have thought of that before they sucker punched us.

 

[nonconformist]

Right, and who are these terrorists?

And are terrorists only the guys who wish harm to America?

 

[bhsup]

Right, and who are these terrorists?

Happy reading.

 

[nonconformist]

So a nation-state cannot be a terrorist?

 

[CartesianFart]

So a nation-state cannot be a terrorist?

If you are referring to the linguistic meaning of the word 'terrorist', it refer to a single individual that does something of a terror behavior.Nation-state i guess can be refered as a single individual state that support terrorism by way of terrorists.It is hard to keep up the conventional trend of the meaning of this word.

 

[Elrohir]

What are those minor things?

I don't know; I just thought I would leave myself a loophole for later.

It's funny how the entire al-Qaeda organization did not even enter into this sentence.

I think most New Yorkers would rather give up Osama's head hanging from Times' Square and that we actually go after the people that still continue to target the city.

Perhaps it was understood that with Osama, al Qaeda would also be taken down before the WOT is finished.

 

[JollyRoger]

That's why it is just "my government". With nobody to negotiate with, it's totally up to us to decide when to stop.

So if there's nobody to negotiate with (and thus stop warring with), I suppose that there isn't anybody to war with.

 

[Taliesin]

Since the "war on terror" is not a formal entity, admitting of a formal conclusion, it is merely a semantic one. In a trivial sense, it will be over when the White House declares it over, i.e, when the U.S. government ceases to describe its actions as a war against terror. In one (barely) non-trivial sense, the events described as "war on terror" will never end, because no sane state abandons defences against terrorism, and terrorism has and will always exist as an anti-state tactic.

The important non-trivial question is, when will the various military and civil measures which the White House assimilates to its "war on terror" cease, or when will the White House stop assimilating them to the "war on terror"? Assuming that this paradigm of foreign policy is intended to replace the Cold War as the frame by which to organise and justify American projection of force, as seems probable, I'd say we're likely to be stuck with it for quite a while.

 

[bhsup]

So a nation-state cannot be a terrorist?

You may have missed the blurb about Sherman at the end of scenario 1. Either that, or you're not well versed in the American Civil War. If that is the case, General Sherman was a general for the Union (the north) who cut a bloody and brutal swath through the heart of The Confederacy.

Scenario 1: Rebellion/Civil War
Rebellion against the lawful governing authority of a nation is not terrorism in and of itself. It is, however, a very interesting situation because the only thing that makes it legitimate is victory. Example - If the British had summarily stomped the holy living snot out of the colonies, then the leaders of the rebellion would all have most likely been hanged as traitors and the rebellion may not have been more than a footnote in the history of the British Empire. However, the colonies won and The British recognized the legitimacy of the new nation via The Treaty of Paris.

Now to apply this scenario to one of <interested individual> queries in which he asked "Are the Chechenians terrorists?". Those that are fighting the Russian soldiers and limiting their actions to those against soldiers or against infrastructure such as railroads aiding the soldiers movements I would say no, they are not terrorists. However, bombings in Moscow at movie theaters and the like..yes, that is a terrorist act.

It doesn't just apply to those fighting "against the system" either. It could be argued quite successfully that Sherman's march to the sea during the American Civil War was loaded with terrorist acts.

So if there's nobody to negotiate with (and thus stop warring with), I suppose that there isn't anybody to war with.

No. It's just that terrorists (see my definition thread link above) do not have the right to wage war, a right reserved for nation-states. Since they decided to try and have a go at it anyway, that's their problem. The US can wage war against them, but they, not being a nation-state, have no right to expect the traditional process of peace talks to take place. WE, and we alone, will decide when it is time to say it is over, period. That's what I meant by having nobody to negotiate with.