I hate to paint with too broad a brush, but really it seems like anyone who still says that we are "at war with Islamic Terrorism" is just incapable of learning. You cannot wage a "War" against a tactic. Terrorism - Islamic or otherwise - is a term describing a type of act or behavior that people engage in. Anyone with two legs, two arms, and a rudimentary understanding of weapons or explosives can commit terrorism. Therefore, we can NEVER WIN a War Against Terrorism, because there will always be people with the ability to commit terrorist acts. I will never understand why people cannot comprehend this.

Author Mark Danner quotes a military counter-insurgency expert as saying "Declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on air power." This always seemed like a pretty good analysis to me. At best, we can identify a specific group of people, at any given time and place, and try to take away their ability to commit acts of terrorism. But of course, in such a case, we are at war with those particular people, and protecting against terrorist attacks (even in the rare and limited cases where this is possible) is a tactic, not an enemy. It's ridiculous to think that people who will very willingly kill themselves and their children in order to inflict damage will somehow be "sacred" out of terrorism. It's a tactic that will always be available, if people are angry and crazy enough.

The real question is, what do people who say "We're at war with Islamic Terrorism" really mean .. or rather, what do they really want? I'm sure there are a substantial number of people who actually believe that we can bomb several select places and somehow, no one else will be able to commit any acts of terrorism.

But people who have any understanding of reality don't think that. There are many people who would declare war on terrorism as a more palatable characterization of what they really want ("terrorism" being something that all thinking people would oppose). What they would say, if they thought they could get away with it, is "We are at war with Islam. Western modern semi-Christian civilization and Islam can never peacefully co-exist, and we won't be safe until the last Muslim is dead." I just wish they would actually come out and say it, and at least I could repesct them for their honesty.

...Americans stupid. and they are right.

get out of afghanistan and iraq this week. save money. then spend saved money on updating law enforcement and the FBI to fight international criminals. and if that fails, declare the borders closed form 'terrorist' states, like pakistan, india, afghanistan, etc. watch those towel heads kill their own 'taliban' so they can tavel and get stuff for nuthin internationally.

We can't do that because some other abstract nouns get in the way: socialism, government control, etc.

Long live the Empire!

"We are at war with Islam. Western modern semi-Christian civilization and Islam can never peacefully co-exist, and we won't be safe until the last Muslim is dead."

On what basis have you determined that this is what people really believe?

I would say that 75% of the Cons I have talked to that is exactly what they believe.

Oh course that is a very small sample, but the posters point is one target; If one cannot win or even fight a 'war on terrorism' than what is the end game? What do those that believe in the war on terrorism really want?

For example, take Iran. What do people that say they hate Iran (and there are many in America) really want with regards to Iran? A Muslim state like Turkey? Only that Iran except that Israel is here to stay and thus they stop making theats to destroy Israel? A state that still hates Israels and Jews but just doesn't have a nuke?

When I ask Cons (and some Dems \ Libs that also buy into the war on terrorism BS), specific questions I rarely get logical answers. Typically I just get they want THEM destroyed. When I ask who 'they' are I get told to fuck off.

the true conservative:

On what basis have you determined that this is what people really believe?

Well, I said that SOME people believe this, so if you don't, then don't take it personally. Having given that qualifier, I've determined it on based upon the following principles:

(1) Many people, such as the author of this piece (by his repeated assertion) will say that we are "at war with Islamic Terrorism."

(2) Since "terrorism" is not the name of a country or a group of people or even an ideology, but the name of a type of action that virtually anyone can undertake, intelligent / thoughtful people understand that such a war could never be won.* I don't imagine anyone wishes to embark upon a war that could never be won, so I conclude that they use the phrase "War on Terror" as short-hand to refer to something that, in fact, would more accurately be characterized differently.

(3) Since the "War on Terror," in practice, involves military operations that involve death of Muslim people, and since even my 14-year old cousin (who is by no means brght, even for his age) can see that each such military operation results in more fanatically angry Muslim people than existed before it began, there are only two possible end-games for such a strategy: pointlessly trade casualties for a while, before embarking upon a retreat that was always planned; or endeavoring to kill all Muslim people until there are none left to get fanatically angry and commit acts of terrorism.

(4) Since I don't see what would be accomplished by pointlessly trading casualties for a while and then retreating, leaving the situation more dangerous than it was before, I can only conclude that they support the 2nd option listed above in (3).

* Here, you can see why not all backers of the "War on Terror" truly believe that all Muslims must be destroyed. Some people think that, if we just wn enough battles (somehow defined), then ... well, then there will be no more terrorism. These people are cretins.

nice response Munich (and your original post as well)!

Here, you can see why not all backers of the "War on Terror" truly believe that all Muslims must be destroyed. Some people think that, if we just wn enough battles (somehow defined), then ... well, then there will be no more terrorism. These people are cretins.

They're also called "Republicans".

My guess is that 50% of those in the Dem party support the war on terror.

Just like a majority of Dems believe in some so called 'god' and are Christians. YES, repub are more crazy, but they are not the only ones with the illness.

cogitorum:

"They're also called "Republicans"

Well, I'm a registered Republican ... so, it probably depends upon the person.

@ Munich: as you said in your original post, I may have been painting with too broad a brush; I should have said, "Many of them are also called 'Republicans'". mea culpa.

cogitorum:

@ Munich: as you said in your original post, I may have been painting with too broad a brush; I should have said, "Many of them are also called 'Republicans'". mea culpa.

Many of them are, no doubt about it. Republicans are probably going to be in the wilderness for 20 years thanks to this idiotic scheme of indiscriminate violence.

A lot of "them" are good old liberal interventionist Democrats, too. They just use a different vocabulary, "nation-building" for example.

Obama thinks we can "fight terrorism" by nation building, by turning Afghanistan into a place that is inhospitable to the likes of al qaida. But what does that mean in practice? Put US troops (or NATO, whatever) on the ground to provide rule of law, without which no nation building is possible.

As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight and we won’t defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people. Obama, 8/17/09

gmat:

A lot of "them" are good old liberal interventionist Democrats, too. They just use a different vocabulary, "nation-building" for example.

Obama thinks we can "fight terrorism" by nation building, by turning Afghanistan into a place that is inhospitable to the likes of al qaida. But what does that mean in practice? Put US troops (or NATO, whatever) on the ground to provide rule of law, without which no nation building is possible.

As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight and we won’t defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people. Obama, 8/17/09

I see from your other posts that you're knowledgeable in this area, probably much more so than me.

I've never been to Afghanistan, but my understanding is that eliminating the ability of anyone to operate a "terrorist training camp" in that country would be completely impossible. I mean, depending upon what particular terrorist acts you wanted to carry out, you could pretty much "train" terrorists in any large basement, or in some clearing or gully other remote location. Most of the "training" that terrorists would have to undergo probably involves learning rather than running through boot-camp style obstacle courses.

It's become clear to me that when violence, occupation, and empire-building become an end unto themselves, "eliminating terrorist training grounds" is just the excuse. Or, rather, one of many excuses, but one that (for whatever reason) has stuck.

correct

In the specific case of the 9-11 attacks, they were planned in Karachi, Kuala lumpur, and Hamburg. The relevant training occurred in the United States

a good discussion

meant to say, a good discussion here