Cheer up, we're winning this War on Terror

[ballz2wallz]

Cheer up. We're winning this War on Terror

Al-Qaeda and the Taleban are in retreat, the surge has worked in Iraq and Islamism is discredited. Not a bad haul

"My centre is giving way. My right is in retreat. Situation excellent. I shall attack!”

If only our political leaders and opinion-formers displayed even a hint of the defiant resilience that carried Marshal Foch to victory at the Battle of the Marne. But these days timorous defeatism is on the march. In Britain setbacks in the Afghan war are greeted as harbingers of inevitable defeat. In America, large swaths of the political class continues to insist Iraq is a lost cause. The consensus in much of the West is that the War on Terror is unwinnable.

And yet the evidence is now overwhelming that on all fronts, despite inevitable losses from time to time, it is we who are advancing and the enemy who is in retreat. The current mood on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact, represents a kind of curious inversion of the great French soldier's dictum: “Success against the Taleban. Enemy giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let's retreat!”

Since it is remarkable how pervasive this pessimism is, it's worth recapping what has been achieved in the past few years.

Afghanistan has been a signal success. There has been much focus on the latest counter-offensive by the Taleban in the southeast of the country and it would be churlish to minimise the ferocity with which the terrorists are fighting, but it would be much more foolish to understate the scale of the continuing Nato achievement. Establishing a stable government for the whole nation is painstaking work, years in the making. It might never be completed. But that was not the principal objective of the war there.
Until the US-led invasion in 2001, Afghanistan was the cockpit of ascendant Islamist terrorism. Consider the bigger picture. Between 1998 and 2005 there were five big terrorist attacks against Western targets - the bombings of the US embassies in Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, 9/11, and the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005. All owed their success either exclusively or largely to Afghanistan's status as a training and planning base for al-Qaeda.

In the past three years there has been no attack on anything like that scale. Al-Qaeda has been driven into a state of permanent flight. Its ability to train jihadists has been severely compromised; its financial networks have been ripped apart. Thousands of its activists and enablers have been killed. It's true that Osama bin Laden's forces have been regrouping in the border areas of Pakistan but their ability to orchestrate mass terrorism there is severely attenuated. And there are encouraging signs that Pakistanis are starting to take to the offensive against them.
Next time you hear someone say that the war in Afghanistan is an exercise in futility ask them this: do they seriously think that if the US and its allies had not ousted the Taleban and sustained an offensive against them for six years that there would have been no more terrorist attacks in the West? What characterised Islamist terrorism before the Afghan war was increasing sophistication, boldness and terrifying efficiency. What has characterised the terrorist attacks in the past few years has been their crudeness, insignificance and a faintly comical ineptitude (remember Glasgow airport?)

The second great advance in the War on Terror has been in Iraq. There's no need to recapitulate the disasters of the US-led war from the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003 to his execution at the end of 2006. We may never fully make up for three and a half lost years of hubris and incompetence but in the last 18 months the change has been startling.
The “surge”, despite all the doubts and derision at the time, has been a triumph of US military planning and execution. Political progress was slower in coming but is now evident too. The Iraqi leadership has shown great courage and dispatch in extirpating extremists and a growing willingness even to turn on Shia militias. Basra is more peaceful and safer than it has been since before the British moved in. Despite setbacks such as yesterday's bombings, the streets of Iraq's cities are calmer and safer than they have been in years. Seventy companies have bid for oil contracts from the Iraqi Government. There are signs of a real political reconciliation that may reach fruition in the election later this year.
The third and perhaps most significant advance of all in the War on Terror is the discrediting of the Islamist creed and its appeal.

This was first of all evident in Iraq, where the head-hacking frenzy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates so alienated the majority of Muslims that it gave rise to the so-called Sunni Awakening that enabled the surge to be so effective.

But it has spread way beyond Iraq. As Lawrence Wright described in an important piece in The New Yorker last month, there is growing disgust not just among moderate Muslims but even among other jihadists at the extremism of the terrorists.

Deeply encouraging has been the widespread revulsion in Muslim communities in Europe - especially in Britain after the 7/7 attacks of three years ago. Some of the biggest intelligence breakthroughs in the past few years have been achieved from former al-Qaeda supporters who have turned against the movement.
There ought to be no surprise here. It's only their apologists in the Western media who really failed to see the intrinsic evil of Islamists. Those who have had to live with it have never been in much doubt about what it represents. Ask the people of Iran. Or those who fled the horrors of Afghanistan under the Taleban.

This is why we fight. Primarily, of course, to protect ourselves from the immediate threat of terrorist carnage, but also because we know that extending the embrace of a civilisation that liberates everyone makes us all safer.

Every death is an unspeakable tragedy. It's right that each time a soldier is killed in action we ask why. Was it really worth it?

The right response to the loss of brave souls such as Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first British woman to die in Afghanistan, is not an immediate call for retreat. It is, first of all, pride; a great, deep conviction that it is on such sacrifice that our own freedoms have always rested. Then, defiance. How foolish is the enemy that it might think our grief is really some prelude to their victory? Finally, confidence. We are prevailing in this struggle. We know it. And everywhere: in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and among Muslims around the world, the enemy knows it too.

Cheer up. We're winning this War on Terror | Gerard Baker - Times Online

I can't help but agree...why IS the West so glum about our job overseas, and why are we so mum about the progress that's been made? Does it just make us happy to think we're a horrible country that's done a horrible job and treats others horribly? Will we ever be recognized for the fact that we've won in ever aspect of this war. (I realize some don't like to call it a war, but it's name is hardly the point!)

[thewise1]

please list the exit criteria for this war

until someone can do this, winning is impossible.

[Scrum]

You cannot wage war on a tactic.

Terrorism will be around long after we are all dead. The "war on terror" a propaganda tool that the neo-cons used to scare the public into supporting their imperialist policies.
Luckily, many people have realized this and no longer buy into their bullshit.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thewise1

please list the exit criteria for this war

until someone can do this, winning is impossible.

Disrupt the Taliban and Al Qaeda would probably be the primary issue. And I think that we've been successful on both of those fronts.

On a wider note, the "axis of evil" has been, for hte most part, drastically changed. Sanctions and talks with NK are all it took for them to give up everything and start blasting apart their nuke facilities. Again, another success again terror supporting groups.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

Disrupt the Taliban and Al Qaeda would probably be the primary issue. And I think that we've been successful on both of those fronts.

ok, so can we come home?

On a wider note, the "axis of evil" has been, for hte most part, drastically changed. Sanctions and talks with NK are all it took for them to give up everything and start blasting apart their nuke facilities. Again, another success again terror supporting groups.

Good, so can we come home?

What other exit criteria are there?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

Disrupt the Taliban and Al Qaeda would probably be the primary issue. And I think that we've been successful on both of those fronts..

AQ has moved into a country that they weren't even welcome in before (Iraq).

How can this be a success?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thewise1

ok, so can we come home?



Good, so can we come home?

What other exit criteria are there?

Given that in past wars our presence was needed to provide stability during the rebuilding stage (see Germany, Japan, SK) for decades, I don't see why we need to come home. Do we need to "come home" from those other countries too?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrum

AQ has moved into a country that they weren't even welcome in before (Iraq).

How can this be a success?

If the war in Iraq brought AQ from around the world to that one area, and they were destroyed there, I see it as a lot easier than searching them out in all corners of the world.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by nurse betty

given that in past wars our presence was needed to provide stability during the rebuilding stage (see germany, japan, sk) for decades, i don't see why we need to come home. do we need to "come home" from those other countries too?

yes!!!

[ballz2wallz]

Everyone just refuses to admit that things are going well!

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

Given that in past wars our presence was needed to provide stability during the rebuilding stage (see Germany, Japan, SK) for decades, I don't see why we need to come home. Do we need to "come home" from those other countries too?

This is not a good argument.

TPM put it better than I ever could.

...there's one distinction between the case of Germany and Japan and Iraq today that gets far too little mention. It's not a matter of culture or religion. It is the fact in the aftermath of World War II, both Germany and Japan had been conquered by the United States and her allies in a wars of aggression that Germany and Japan had started. The civilian populations of each country, whatever their war guilt, had experienced shattering levels of violence and privation in the final years of the war. And both countries were immediately faced by nearby hostile powers they feared much more than the United States. There are almost countless differences between the two historical situations, either separate from these points or growing out them. But taken together, these three factors explain a great deal of why our occupation of Iraq lacks both the legitimacy and the acceptance we enjoyed in those two countries.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

If the war in Iraq brought AQ from around the world to that one area, and they were destroyed there, I see it as a lot easier than searching them out in all corners of the world.

So you think AQ is destroyed? lol

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

If the war in Iraq brought AQ from around the world to that one area, and they were destroyed there, I see it as a lot easier than searching them out in all corners of the world.

What?


Did AQ cease to exist in other countries? No. They recruited people in Iraq to join and their numbers grew.

[Dylith]

In the past three years there has been no attack on anything like that scale. Al-Qaeda has been driven into a state of permanent flight.

The 2007 Algiers bombing?

Let's also not forget Iraq where Al Qaeda has now been concentrating its efforts.

Though overall, I would say that the article is right concerning the current status of Al Qaeda, It was never a really large organization to begin with but it has been quite weakened over the past several years. It is still a threat, but they have lost many leaders and a lot of financial support as well as faced some internal situations (internal to the Muslim world that is) with their hostilities towards the shiite attacks and even at Iran.


As for the article's opinion on Afghanistan, I find it to be silly. Afghanistan is a mess and this article tries to brush this fact aside by saying that it is ok if Afghanistan is a mess because we didn't go in their to stabalize the region. That simply isn't true. We went in there for security reasons and to eliminate both current and future security threats and an unstable Afghanistan that would fall right back into the hands of the Taliban and other warlords would not be condusive to our goals. We have failed big time in Afghanistan so far with it going from being a country that had virtually eliminated its opium production to becoming the largest drug producing country in the world in a matter of years, and with a cerntral government that can't extend its influence and control outside of the area surrounding the capital, with most of the rest of the country being run by local warlords.

I won't even go into Iraq, but I will say that the moment that we started using cluster munitions at the begining of the war we started failing the country that we were trying to "help" and stabalize.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

Everyone just refuses to admit that things are going well!

Things are going well and the news are not reporting the sucess, but what is it costing us. The cost is staggering we cannot continue, it is hurting our country we need to spend that money in U.S. and pay off our huge debt which is how this war is being paid for, by debt. Also will the sunni's and shites really be able to work together and what about the corruption built into their whole society how can we help build a democratic society in a nation full of corruption. We can't. We need to start getting out. Maybe we should send a army of auditors over there.

[Spideynw]

It is an impossibility to know if we are "winning" a war on "terror". The only thing we do know is that we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives on something we have no idea if it is helping.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

Everyone just refuses to admit that things are going well!

Yes, things are going real well....

Stock market is falling apart...

Dollar has fallen 40% since the war began...

World food crisis because of rising food prices...

More people IN THE U.S. getting food from local food banks...who are low on supplies...

Real inflation rate in double digits (you know..utilizing the same criteria for figuring inflation from the Carter years)...

Housing bubble has burst...

Consumer debt over 2.6 trillion...

National debt over 9.3 trillion...

Trade deficit averages 58 billion a month...

Budget deficit in the billions doesn't even include the cost for the wars...

Real Unemployment near 14% when you include the "discouraged workers..."

Industrial production has contracted year over year...

Oil and Gasoline prices at record levels...

There are no consequences to our actions around the world are there?

Things are going real well! We're winning! We're winning!

Meanwhile, seniors on a fixed income are

Where we go from here I prefer not to dwell on...

Hey...we've got Obama or McCain to save us!


Fed Up

[Fed Up]

Some more reading for you Nurse Betty....

Tomgram: The Urge to Surge

Synopsis: " If you want a prediction, here it is and it couldn't be simpler: This cannot end well. Not for Washington. Not for the U.S. military. Not for Americans. And, above all, not for Iraqis."

Fed Up

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

I can't help but agree...why IS the West so glum about our job overseas, and why are we so mum about the progress that's been made? Does it just make us happy to think we're a horrible country that's done a horrible job and treats others horribly? Will we ever be recognized for the fact that we've won in ever aspect of this war. (I realize some don't like to call it a war, but it's name is hardly the point!)

Our job? What is our job? There is no "war on terror".

Our job should have been to blow the crap out of the people responsible for attacking our country. After that is done our job is done.

Our job does not include installing government and invading countries that had nothing to do with attacking us.