There's been a lot of debate in several threads now that boils down to "which tactics are we using or should we be using to win the War on Terror." I've been trying to dig around now for a long time for an example of a policy, ANY policy that the US or its allies have enacted that puts us into a winning stance. I can't find one. Not a single one. Even with hundreds of years of "lessons learned" that this administration can draw upon, including the recent example of Northern Ireland, they can't come up with any single policy that puts us one step closer to beating the "terrrrists".
There have been a lot of other policies enacted with the "War on Terror" in mind, and they cover a wide range of subjects like relaxing standards on prisoner treatment, suspending civil liberties for terror suspects, sending troops into one country or another to blow things up, spending money on tons of contracts and study groups, finding blame for 9/11, adding more police powers, and selectively adding security to places with only the most public scrutiny (not necessarily the most dangerous terrorist targets), public awareness for counter-terror bordering on the ridiculous (duct tape!), and plenty of money thrown around for pro-war propoganda and photo ops. I haven't seen one policy that actually outlines a winning strategy for combating terror. Supporting or disparaging any of these policies, regardless of whose side you're on, has NO EFFECT on countering or reducing the frequency of terrorist acts. Some of the policies actually INCREASE the effects of terrorism or aid in recruiting terrorists.
My conclusion: They have no intention of winning. At all. The "War on Terror" will continue until a new enemy is found to supplant it, and then it will be just a memory. Real terrorist acts will continue, but without the media attention they once had.
All the debate on who is causing us to lose and who is causing us to win and which tactics are better are completely irrelevant because they have no intention of "winning" anything.
...more to come...
There have been a lot of other policies enacted with the "War on Terror" in mind, and they cover a wide range of subjects like relaxing standards on prisoner treatment, suspending civil liberties for terror suspects, sending troops into one country or another to blow things up, spending money on tons of contracts and study groups, finding blame for 9/11, adding more police powers, and selectively adding security to places with only the most public scrutiny (not necessarily the most dangerous terrorist targets), public awareness for counter-terror bordering on the ridiculous (duct tape!), and plenty of money thrown around for pro-war propoganda and photo ops. I haven't seen one policy that actually outlines a winning strategy for combating terror. Supporting or disparaging any of these policies, regardless of whose side you're on, has NO EFFECT on countering or reducing the frequency of terrorist acts. Some of the policies actually INCREASE the effects of terrorism or aid in recruiting terrorists.
My conclusion: They have no intention of winning. At all. The "War on Terror" will continue until a new enemy is found to supplant it, and then it will be just a memory. Real terrorist acts will continue, but without the media attention they once had.
All the debate on who is causing us to lose and who is causing us to win and which tactics are better are completely irrelevant because they have no intention of "winning" anything.
...more to come...
