The left does not allow us to fight properly !!

[jillian]

A couple of excellent questions.

Technically of course there has been no declaration of war. This does not mean this is not a war, simply that it is not a legal textbook traditional war (there actually are very few of those).

The US, and the West, but also moderate muslims, is engaged in a conflict or war with what I refer to as the jihadi's: aggressive and determined muslim radicals (by no means a unified force) who have as their objective to wage holy war against both moderate muslims and all non-muslims who are not willing to accept muslim rule. This conflict is not new. I would date its beginning tot 1978-79 with the Iranian Revolution and other - unrelated but similar - movements in Afghanistan and elsewhere. For many years the US and the West tried to ignore this conflict or treat it as a simple political and security issue, but this was no longer possible after the Al Qaeda attacks on the US homeland. Since then, the US has been waging a sustained campaign, on many fronts throughout the world and with many different allies, to combat the various manifestations of the Jihadi war.

The objective of the US campaign has been to neutralize as much as possible the jihadi threat by destroying its bases, fighting the regimes and authorities that support it, seize its finances, establish counter-forces in the muslim world, etc. On the whole this campaign has been very costly in terms of costs and lives but also quite succesful. It will, however take many more years of sustained effort to defeat the jihadi threat.

Having said al that I come to the last question, which I take to be a question abouit the use of a sustained engagement on the ground in Afghanistan. I think it is debatable if the objectives we pursue there require a continued presence in force on the ground. Unfortunately, the Karzai regime is very weak and riddled with corruption. The fear (well grounded) is that after the departure of Western troops it will collapse and the Taliban will again seize power. But maybe this is inevitable. in that case it all comes down to the question wheher a new Taliban regime in Afghanistan can be contained so it doesn't pose a threat to the rest of the world. That is a difficult question to answer.

thank you for your response.

if a new taliban regime were to pose a thread, or at least a threat larger than any other regime that funds and shelters terrorists, do we really need full scale ground war with a 100,000 boots on the ground? probably not.

also, if we acknowledge that when we leave, the taliban will reconstitute, which it will, then doesn't that mean we can never leave since they will always re-take power?

the other thing i question is: how do you wage a war against a tactic? in "fighting jihadis", aren't we really waging a war on terror... defining what we're doing with those words basically makes it an endless endeavor.

I have never been optimistic about winning a war on terror, crime, or drugs because no one ever defines victory and therefore you never win. I can understand a war against a nation, but a war against an ideology does not make much sense. Such a war is better fought by law enforcement, possibly with military assistance, but not as a military campaign.

Exactly. I don't see any way to win a war against a tactic or an ideology. If we had fought a war against fascism instead of fighting the germans, we'd still be waging WWII.

 

[Flopper]

properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!

The wars of the 20th century were or at least were perceived to be a fight for survival of the nation. We fought nations not bands of terrorist and insurgences. In WWII, the enemy was clearly defined. In today's war, the enemy is mixed into the general population. The Taliban is estimated to have only a few thousand actual fighters in a country of 40 million. Attacking the civil population would turn the thing into a Vietnam.

It's a different kind of war and one we should not be in.

we are at war with Islam!! and millions of muslims support the terrorists and the destruction of the west ...and in a nuclear age we have to be even more aggressive against radicals that want the bomb !! welcome to WW 3 libb !!

If the goal of such a war is to destroy Islam, then you're describing a war without end. There are over 2 billion Muslims in the world with significant numbers in almost every nation on earth.

 

[Vidi]

The wars of the 20th century were or at least were perceived to be a fight for survival of the nation. We fought nations not bands of terrorist and insurgences. In WWII, the enemy was clearly defined. In today's war, the enemy is mixed into the general population. The Taliban is estimated to have only a few thousand actual fighters in a country of 40 million. Attacking the civil population would turn the thing into a Vietnam.

It's a different kind of war and one we should not be in.

we are at war with Islam!! and millions of muslims support the terrorists and the destruction of the west ...and in a nuclear age we have to be even more aggressive against radicals that want the bomb !! welcome to WW 3 libb !!

If the goal of such a war is to destroy Islam, then you're describing a war without end. There are over 2 billion Muslims in the world with significant numbers in almost every nation on earth.

And a war without end would need constant funding.

I agree though that it's not a war on Islam. Not really.

But it's sold as one to both the hard right AND the hard left.

 

[yidnar]

we are at war with Islam!! and millions of muslims support the terrorists and the destruction of the west ...and in a nuclear age we have to be even more aggressive against radicals that want the bomb !! welcome to WW 3 libb !!

If the goal of such a war is to destroy Islam, then you're describing a war without end. There are over 2 billion Muslims in the world with significant numbers in almost every nation on earth.

And a war without end would need constant funding.

I agree though that it's not a war on Islam. Not really.

But it's sold as one to both the hard right AND the hard left.

tell the islamist that !!

 

[Artevelde]

I have never been optimistic about winning a war on terror, crime, or drugs because no one ever defines victory and therefore you never win. I can understand a war against a nation, but a war against an ideology does not make much sense. Such a war is better fought by law enforcement, possibly with military assistance, but not as a military campaign.

It is not a war on terror as an abstract concept or a tactic. There are many terrorist threats and most of these are indeed best dealt with as a normal security issue.

What i'm talking about is hower a fight against a specific - albeit diverse and many-faceted - movement called jihadism. It is indeed not a classic war, but it is a form of war nevertheless.

Besides, it's not a question about whether we want to fight this war. it is being waged against us. The question is if we are going to keep fighting back, and what is the best way to do this.

 

[Artevelde]

I disagree profoundly. we are not at war with Islam, but with the jihadi's. Don't forget that the primary victims of jihadi terrorism are other muslims. The number of muslims killed by jihadi fighters is much higher than the number of Westerners.

 

[Artevelde]

The goal is not to destroy islam but to destroy the jihadi movement. That will indeed be a very long-term effort, but it is essential.

 

[Vidi]

The goal is not to destroy islam but to destroy the jihadi movement. That will indeed be a very long-term effort, but it is essential.

Ooooooorrrr...

We could just stop supporting the dictators that oppress them...

Just a thought

 

[uscitizen]

Yepper we once supported Sadam and the Taliban.

 

[Artevelde]

The goal is not to destroy islam but to destroy the jihadi movement. That will indeed be a very long-term effort, but it is essential.

Ooooooorrrr...

We could just stop supporting the dictators that oppress them...

Just a thought

The jihadi terrorists aren't fighting oppression. They are fighting to install greater repression.

The idea that all problems would go away if the US dropped its support for certain regimes is a fallacy. That is not what the global jihad is about.

 

[Artevelde]

Yepper we once supported Sadam and the Taliban.

The US never supported the Taliban and never really supported saddam Hussein either (although it did offer limited support to Iraq during its war with Iran).

These kinds of lies keep resurfacing, but they remain lies nevertheless.

 

[Flopper]

I have never been optimistic about winning a war on terror, crime, or drugs because no one ever defines victory and therefore you never win. I can understand a war against a nation, but a war against an ideology does not make much sense. Such a war is better fought by law enforcement, possibly with military assistance, but not as a military campaign.

It is not a war on terror as an abstract concept or a tactic. There are many terrorist threats and most of these are indeed best dealt with as a normal security issue.

What i'm talking about is hower a fight against a specific - albeit diverse and many-faceted - movement called jihadism. It is indeed not a classic war, but it is a form of war nevertheless.

Besides, it's not a question about whether we want to fight this war. it is being waged against us. The question is if we are going to keep fighting back, and what is the best way to do this.

I believe using the military as the spearhead in fighting terrorism is costly and not very effective. Terrorism is a crime and should be treated as such. At the forefront of the war on terrorism should be law enforcement using covert organization such as CIA and backed up by the military.

Putting a hundred thousand troops on the ground to chase a few thousand terrorist through the villages and mountains is never going to achieve any real victory.

 

[Vidi]

Yepper we once supported Sadam and the Taliban.

The US never supported the Taliban and never really supported saddam Hussein either (although it did offer limited support to Iraq during its war with Iran).

These kinds of lies keep resurfacing, but they remain lies nevertheless.

Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[48]Ronald Reagan praised mujahideen as "freedom fighters".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89).

Read more: The Taliban — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html#ixzz1ptxHSOaS

You're absolutely wrong.

 

[The T]

Yepper we once supported Sadam and the Taliban.

Against the Soviets...AND?

 

[Vidi]

Ooooooorrrr...

We could just stop supporting the dictators that oppress them...

Just a thought

The jihadi terrorists aren't fighting oppression. They are fighting to install greater repression.

The idea that all problems would go away if the US dropped its support for certain regimes is a fallacy. That is not what the global jihad is about.

Fair enough.

My post was an oversimplification.

 

[The T]

The jihadi terrorists aren't fighting oppression. They are fighting to install greater repression.

The idea that all problems would go away if the US dropped its support for certain regimes is a fallacy. That is not what the global jihad is about.

Fair enough.

My post was an oversimplification.

FIXED for you...now don't screw it up again...

 

[yidnar]

thank you for your response.

if a new taliban regime were to pose a thread, or at least a threat larger than any other regime that funds and shelters terrorists, do we really need full scale ground war with a 100,000 boots on the ground? probably not.

also, if we acknowledge that when we leave, the taliban will reconstitute, which it will, then doesn't that mean we can never leave since they will always re-take power?

the other thing i question is: how do you wage a war against a tactic? in "fighting jihadis", aren't we really waging a war on terror... defining what we're doing with those words basically makes it an endless endeavor.

I have never been optimistic about winning a war on terror, crime, or drugs because no one ever defines victory and therefore you never win. I can understand a war against a nation, but a war against an ideology does not make much sense. Such a war is better fought by law enforcement, possibly with military assistance, but not as a military campaign.

Exactly. I don't see any way to win a war against a tactic or an ideology. If we had fought a war against fascism instead of fighting the germans, we'd still be waging WWII.

muslims are the enemy !!

 

[yidnar]

I disagree profoundly. we are not at war with Islam, but with the jihadi's. Don't forget that the primary victims of jihadi terrorism are other muslims. The number of muslims killed by jihadi fighters is much higher than the number of Westerners.

when they get the bomb you will change your outlook !!

 

[Vidi]

when they get the bomb you will change your outlook !!

Pakistan already has the bomb.

 

[Artevelde]

Yepper we once supported Sadam and the Taliban.

The US never supported the Taliban and never really supported saddam Hussein either (although it did offer limited support to Iraq during its war with Iran).

These kinds of lies keep resurfacing, but they remain lies nevertheless.

Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[48]Ronald Reagan praised mujahideen as "freedom fighters".

Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89).

Read more: The Taliban — Infoplease.com The Taliban — Infoplease.com

You're absolutely wrong.

The Taliban emerged much later and they fought the mujahideen and were fought by them. You should try to get better informed.