Arab Winter Setting In -- Gonna Be a Doozy...

[Seth]

You might as well have the victory condition be "the elimination of unease". Terrorism cannot be eradicated globally. We can't even do it in Afghanistan.

I didn't say we could accomplish the mission, I just stated what the mission is. There is no other alternative I'm afraid, we can't just sit back and allow terrorists to wreak havoc unopposed.

[laklak]

Sure we could, Seth. Just declare Sharia law in the U.S., legalize child marriage, enact blasphemy laws, hang children from construction cranes for having premarital sex, you know, that sort of thing.

We should certainly consider it, after all, without those actions we might inadvertently offend their religious sensibilities.

[Cormac]

It isn't as if there wouldn't be a war, just because we didn't give it a name.

but which war? The Taliban War? The Iraq War? The Yemen War?

It is non-specific and generally applicable. What is "Terror" and what is "Terrorism"?

Names are important. The current war has no defined mission. It has no victory conditions.

Nonsense. It's defined mission is to identify terrorists, terrorist-supporting states and individuals and then destroy them. The victory condition is the elimination of global terrorism.

So, would for example, the Contras of the 1980s be considered "terrorists"?

The rebel fighters in Syria? The Georgian government fighting Russian aggression? The miners in South Africa? Wikileaks?

[Cormac]

Double post.

[Coito ergo sum]

It isn't as if there wouldn't be a war, just because we didn't give it a name.

but which war? The Taliban War? The Iraq War? The Yemen War?

The war is being fought in all those places, regardless of what we call it. Announcing the "war on terrorism" in 2001 was more about naming something that already existed. We didn't start it after 9/11/01. We had the choice to either fight back, or not. Certainly, whether, who, what, where, when and how the fight is fought could be argued all day long. But, if we didn't go to afghanistan or Iraq, it's not as if there wouldn't be a war going on. It would just have been in a bit different.

It is non-specific and generally applicable. What is "Terror" and what is "Terrorism"?

Well, the reason it was called the War on Terrorism was to get a nonspecific legal authority from Congress to have the President as Commander In Chief of the armed forces direct the war where he and the military personnel saw the need, within reason. That's why Obama can claim he has authority to go into Yemen or Pakistan and bomb people even when we haven't declared war on those States. This was all explained in 2001 -- remember -- this is an "asymmetric" war, to be fought globally in dozens of countries, over many years, militarily, law enforcement wise, diplomatically, politically, economically, etc. We couldn't effectively declare war like in the old days when we declared war on the Krauts and the Japanese. It's not that kind of a war. We need the flexibility to go into places we haven't declared war on to get to the guys we're after.

So, nobody actually thinks that "terrorism" is a thing that can be defeated. It's just a name to use as a talking point to reference the overall war, and to obtain legal authority for military actions in a blanket form that doesn't require us to go back to Congress every time a drone wants to pop someone in Pakistan or Oman or Yemen.

Names are important. The current war has no defined mission. It has no victory conditions.

Yes, very difficult. But, it is not as if our leaders have much of an alternative. What would you have Obama do? Declare war on a specific country? Declare war on Yemen?

Wars didn't start in the old days with predetermined victory conditions either. We got involved in WW2 and the victory conditions were to defeat the Japanese and Nazi Germany and Italian and Finnish and Arabs, etc., allied therewith. The war was over when the bad guys were dead or surrendered, and people stopped shooting at us. We're at war now with state supported and sponsored international non-governmental organizations. We'll be able to tell through intelligence when there isn't an Al Qaeta, etc., in the fight. As long as there is, I guess we have to put up a fight.

What else can we do?

[Coito ergo sum]

It isn't as if there wouldn't be a war, just because we didn't give it a name.

but which war? The Taliban War? The Iraq War? The Yemen War?

The war is being fought in all those places, regardless of what we call it. Announcing the "war on terrorism" in 2001 was more about naming something that already existed. We didn't start it after 9/11/01. We had the choice to either fight back, or not. Certainly, whether, who, what, where, when and how the fight is fought could be argued all day long. But, if we didn't go to afghanistan or Iraq, it's not as if there wouldn't be a war going on. It would just have been in a bit different.

It is non-specific and generally applicable. What is "Terror" and what is "Terrorism"?

Well, the reason it was called the War on Terrorism was to get a nonspecific legal authority from Congress to have the President as Commander In Chief of the armed forces direct the war where he and the military personnel saw the need, within reason. That's why Obama can claim he has authority to go into Yemen or Pakistan and bomb people even when we haven't declared war on those States. This was all explained in 2001 -- remember -- this is an "asymmetric" war, to be fought globally in dozens of countries, over many years, militarily, law enforcement wise, diplomatically, politically, economically, etc. We couldn't effectively declare war like in the old days when we declared war on the Krauts and the Japanese. It's not that kind of a war. We need the flexibility to go into places we haven't declared war on to get to the guys we're after.

So, nobody actually thinks that "terrorism" is a thing that can be defeated. It's just a name to use as a talking point to reference the overall war, and to obtain legal authority for military actions in a blanket form that doesn't require us to go back to Congress every time a drone wants to pop someone in Pakistan or Oman or Yemen.

Names are important. The current war has no defined mission. It has no victory conditions.

Yes, very difficult. But, it is not as if our leaders have much of an alternative. What would you have Obama do? Declare war on a specific country? Declare war on Yemen?

Wars didn't start in the old days with predetermined victory conditions either. We got involved in WW2 and the victory conditions were to defeat the Japanese and Nazi Germany and Italian and Finnish and Arabs, etc., allied therewith. The war was over when the bad guys were dead or surrendered, and people stopped shooting at us. We're at war now with state supported and sponsored international non-governmental organizations. We'll be able to tell through intelligence when there isn't an Al Qaeta, etc., in the fight. As long as there is, I guess we have to put up a fight.

What else can we do?

[Cormac]

You might as well have the victory condition be "the elimination of unease". Terrorism cannot be eradicated globally. We can't even do it in Afghanistan.

hexactly.

[Atheist-Lite]

You might as well have the victory condition be "the elimination of unease". Terrorism cannot be eradicated globally. We can't even do it in Afghanistan.

hexactly.

There is a way to eradicate terrorism but it prevented by the USA being held back by the UN. Take Afghanistan. There is a option on deploying biological agents that would utterley decimate the opium harvest. This would reduce the flow of arms to a trickle and unless the farmers started to use crops prescribed by the West they would be left to starve.

[Cormac]

The issue is that what it actually does is create a permanent state of war, akin to that described in Orwell's 1984, along with the attendant assaults on liberties by the government.

It also gives the likes of Russia, Iran, China, Indonesia, and lots of other dictatorial shitholes to crack down on their opposition by calling them terrorists.

[Cormac]

You might as well have the victory condition be "the elimination of unease". Terrorism cannot be eradicated globally. We can't even do it in Afghanistan.

hexactly.

There is a way to eradicate terrorism but it prevented by the USA being held back by the UN. Take Afghanistan. There is a option on deploying biological agents that would utterley decimate the opium harvest. This would reduce the flow of arms to a trickle and unless the farmers started to use crops prescribed by the West they would be left to starve.

That is not the source of funds for Islamic terrorism.

[Cormac]

Incidentally, don't take from my comments that I don't think these guys should not be opposed militarily.

However, because it will not deal with root causes, it cannot succeed.

[Cormac]

You might as well have the victory condition be "the elimination of unease". Terrorism cannot be eradicated globally. We can't even do it in Afghanistan.

hexactly.

There is a way to eradicate terrorism but it prevented by the USA being held back by the UN. Take Afghanistan. There is a option on deploying biological agents that would utterley decimate the opium harvest. This would reduce the flow of arms to a trickle and unless the farmers started to use crops prescribed by the West they would be left to starve.

It is also a collective punishment - a war crime.

[Coito ergo sum]

Incidentally, don't take from my comments that I don't think these guys should not be opposed militarily.

However, because it will not deal with root causes, it cannot succeed.

You know what the root causes are? Better go let Obama know....

[Atheist-Lite]

It is opium. How can destroying their illegal crops be a warcrime?

[Coito ergo sum]

It is opium. How can destroying their illegal crops be a warcrime?

It's illegal to grow poppies?

I wonder what those seeds were on my bagel this morning.... huh...?