Question 11: How Do We Know When the War is Over?
The eleventh and final question in our debate series on the War in Iraq and the War on Terrorism is a broad one. But it will be interesting to read everyone’s take on this:
How do we know when the War on Terror is over? How about Iraq? When do we bring the troops home?
This is the last question. Tomorrow I’ll post some final thoughts on what has been said and what I’ve learned. Thanks to all who’ve participated.
Question One: Why did we invade Iraq?
Question Two: Has the Iraq war set any precedents?
Question Three: Are we safer?
Question Four: Why do some think America is the enemy?
Question Five: Why are we so divided?
Question Six: Why do we use words like ‘Hitler’ and ‘unpatriotic’?
Question Seven: Can you oppose the war and still support the troops?
Question Eight: Why has there been a rise in democracy in the Mid East?
Question Nine: What’s the next step on the War on Terror?
Question Ten: Will we ever agree if Iraq was right or wrong?
posted by Alan Stewart Carl @ 9:07 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
How do we know when the War on Terror is over? How about Iraq? When do we bring the troops home? My Views: I think we will have a good idea that it’s over in Iraq when between ½ and ¾ of our troops are moved out of there. (Note that I didn’t say brought home… Questions about this could start a whole new series of questions.) As far as the overall war goes… This war is not like any another. It will just quietly fadeaway.
Now don’t get me wrong… There’s going to be a lot of kicking and bucking, screaming and hollering before we ever see this war winding down. I don’t think we will ever see any President, (it sure want be this one,) come out and have a great big news conference saying the war on terror is over. That’s just not going to happen. Instead, things will just slowly wind down and as I said, just quietly fadeaway.
I guess we’ll know this when there is no more news coverage on deaths by people blowing themselves and others up. When there’s no more news about car bombings, beheadings and the likes. And not to be left out, when all those anti-war people finally get to shut the hell up and too get off the world stage.
As far as the troops go… We can not get those brave men and women home soon enough. I’m just afraid that’s going to be many years off into an unforeseeable future. (Thanks to those at “The Yellow Line” for putting on this series of questions this last two weeks. It’s truly been interesting to see what others have had in mind on all of this.)
But I thought the war was over? I thought this was just an occupation now? I'm so confused. Didn't Bush tell us, "mission accomplished"?
But seriously. I'm no expert, but I don't even think the experts know. I have no idea when it will be over. It might be over when we start bringing troops home or it might still be going on long after we leave. We can't predict what will happen in such a volitile part of the world. Anyone who thinks they can is slightly naive.
"We can't predict what will happen in such a volitile part of the world. Anyone who thinks they can is slightly naive."
True. But that hasn't stopped countless people from trying.
Let's start by admitting we are not in a War on Terror. We are in a war against Muslim fanaticism. Terror, as a tactic, isn't going away. There will be bombings and shootings and all manner of attacks by all manner militants from now until the end of time.
So, the question is, when do we know we've beaten the Muslim jihadists? I would say a good benchmark will be when the nations of Middle East are democratic. Democracies will have to rise while Muslim fanaticism fight back. But a successful rise in democracy would signal the defeat of those seeking to turn all the Middle East into a Caliphate.
That is probably a long time in coming. There is no magical way to create democracy in a country without it. Military force has produced one marginal success in Afghanistan and one "incomplete" in Iraq and has cost billions of our dollars and a great number of our citizens' lives.
But diplomatic force is terribly slow and can put a country in sticky situations. Do you support the corrupt regime that is considering opening up a few elections and can help root out terrorist leaders? Or do you support the insurgent party that may or may not have a violent streak and different ideas about what democracy is? Foreign relations often presents choices between the lesser of two evils. Or the choice of doing nothing at all.
But we can't do nothng. Muslim fanaticism is a clear and present threat to our nation. Sometimes I get the sense that some people want to do nothing. That's wrong. This is a real enemy.
Which, brings me to my conclusion. Thie War on Muslim Fanaticism won't end without a fight. If we are going to relieve our military of the burden, we have to fight on other fronts. Diplomatic. Economic. Theologic. And on.
It's not going to end anytime soon. But it has to end. There really is no other option.
As for Iraq, it'll be over either after a constitution is installed and a permanent govenrment is elected or within a year after the 2008 election. I think it either ends well under Bush or not so well with a Vietnam-syle withdrawl under our next President.
The key words here are, “Unforeseeable Future.” Only God knows when it’s all going to end………..
I don't think there really is an end to the war on terror. Unfortunately, there will always be people in the world who think that violence and murder are acceptable ways force their point of view on others. So, by declaring a war on terror, I think what Bush has really done is simply state that if you are a nation/organization/individual who uses these tactics, the U.S. will consider you an enemy. He didn't have real expectations of ridding the world of every single terrorist, but wanted to make clear that we would stand against anybody who commits acts of terror.
As for the war in Iraq, that's quite a bit trickier. I don't think that the terrorism has to stop completely for the war to be over. Look at Isreal. They deal with terrorism on a very regular basis, but they are still a very functional, independent nation. So, I think that terrorist attacks could continue for years in Iraq, even after the war is over.
So, I think that a couple of things need to happen before we can start talking about an end to this war. 1) we need to start hearing about Iraqi forces winning more and more battles on their own against the insurgency 2) the Iraqi government declares that it is secure enough to request that the U.S. pull some troops out of the country.
Ted -
My point was that there was not an end to the War on Terror. There will never be a day when we can look at the world and claim that we have killed or captured every single terrorist, and that there won't be any more acts of terrorism. It is a fight that will always be there. All we can do is to make sure we are always on the side that is fighting against the terrorists.
Bush made that promise to the world shortly after 9/11, and I agree with his decision to do so. Whether or not he has lived up to that promise is a totally different discussion.
The War on "Terror" never ends, because so many Republicans will always be chickenshits. Similarly, the War on Drugs hasn't ended because some Americans will always have too much money and not enough brains. Declaring war on things that can't be defeated is a singularly Republican thing to do, that couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Republicans make a lot of money on war.
The war in Iraq will be over for us when all our troops are out of there. Duh. It will be over for Iraqis when the violence in Baghdad is no worse than it is in Washington, D.C.
If the war "ends well under Bush," it'll be through no work of his own. He may "think about Iraq every day," but he doesn't think about it very hard, as evidenced by empty-ass speech this week.
The war on crazy religious people is over when all the crazy religious people stop getting elected to positions of power.
The war in Iraq will be effectively over long before our troops have left. We will have lost the war when we move into a secured base mode of operation. We already have the green zone, but our troops still move fairly freely in most areas. When we dig in those 14 fortified bases and only sally out on search and destroy missions, we will have effectively lost (see history re Dien Bien Phu). At that point a political compromise will signal the end, and it won't leave the collaborationist current government, and possibly not the coming constitution in place, either.
As to the wide TWAT (the war against terror) there is no way to win a 'war against a strategy, as opposed to a group of people or ideology. So with no way to 'win', there's equally no way to lose. What you can do is bumble around spending a lot of effort and money on very little result, which is what the Bush Administration has done.
Bush failed becuase he consistently fails to identify real, effective, and hostile targets for aggressive nuetralization. Are we after the Khan nuclear network? No. Are we after the ISI and Pak radicals? No. Are we after Al Qaida and its many immitators? Not so much. Are we after the Whabbi bastards in SA behind 9/11? No. Are we at the same time ensuring our PR program is basd on strong truth and justice, not lies and spin to cover for attrocities? No. Thus we loose the Arab world's minds. Bush should be on Al Jazeeera daily if he wasn't a half-wit.
Post a Comment
<< Home