Are we winning the war on terror?

[MaC]

I don't even know anymore.  I think it's just an ideological battle at this point with the GOP saying "look we've caught w, x, and y" and the Dems saying "yeah, but you really should've gone after z".

Someone make a clear point for their case.

[bgwah]

Of course not!

If anything, the (R)etarded Party has only created more terrorists.

Good job GOP, thousands of innocent Iraqis are dying every month and the numbers are only going up, and the blood is on your hands.

Every Republican voter should possibly face the death penalty for their actions in murdering so many thousands of people.

[MaC]

Pretty extreme of you to say considering Lieberman voted for the Iraq War. By that logic all the Democratic voters in Connecticut should face the death penalty too.

[Citizen James]

Sort of.

Despite a good deal of bungling by the neo-con/neo-liberal ideologues who want to use Iraq as a testing ground for forcing a free market democracy at the barell of a gun, it would seem that things are being stepped up behind the scenes (and a lot of other nations are picking up a lot of the slack - see Englands recent counterism victory - which could have been even stronger had we let them flush out more contacts rather than blow thier cover for short term political gain - but still was a major victory).

I think even our own governement has finally gotten back up to a level of counter terror efforts similar to the late Clinton era.  (Yes, yes, I know right wingers like to pretend Clinton did nothing, and that Bush had no warning that the stateless terrorists which his neo-con advisors claimed were no real threat compared with state sponsored terrorists actually did posess a real danger - but those are people who care less about reality - much less national safety - than blind loyalty to king president and country party.

[Pictor Ignotus]

Pretty extreme of you to say considering Lieberman voted for the Iraq War. By that logic all the Democratic voters in Connecticut should face the death penalty too.

Not to mention Hillary Clinton voters in NY.

[Joe Republic]

Like I've said right from the beginning, you cannot fight a war against an abstract concept.

[adam]

I'll put it as simply as I can. Is the US Military winning? Yes. Are the American people winning? No. We have once again been forced to digest war-time propaganda from both sides, our domestic crisis' are now being ignored once again, the economy is once again going down the tubes. Yes, we killed "errorists A and B, but at the end of the day...what does that really do for the American people. Not a damn thing.

[angus]

I don't even know anymore.

I hear ya.  On the one hand, there's been no major attack on US soil since they got serious.  On the other, we have been asked to surrender a great deal of freedom.  What have we lost?  If your answer is, "not much," then you probably can conclude we're winning.  If your answer is, "a great deal," then you can say that the terrorists have won.

TIME, september 11, 2006, had an excellent article about this, by the way, which examined the economic and social consequences both of the attacks and our response.

[Clay]

We're not winning.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Yes--we have caught many people.  Sure we haven't caught them all, but then again, there are still Nazi's out there-but nobody disputes our WWII victory.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Where's Osama? We're neglecting Afganistan and Pakistan. They just freed Daniel Pearl's killers.

As for Iraq, the situation is bad enough that they're building a moat around Baghdad.

[David S]

Good job GOP, thousands of innocent Iraqis are dying every month and the numbers are only going up, and the blood is on your hands.

Every Republican voter should possibly face the death penalty for their actions in murdering so many thousands of people.

Lucky for me I voted Libertarian!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Good job GOP, thousands of innocent Iraqis are dying every month and the numbers are only going up, and the blood is on your hands.

Every Republican voter should possibly face the death penalty for their actions in murdering so many thousands of people.

Lucky for me I voted Libertarian!

That's not going to solve the problem, seeing as the Libertarian candidate can't win. You should see if there's a more realistic way to change the fact that currently 9 out of Michigan's 15 representatives are Iraq war supporting Republicans.

Of course, in some cases, one doesn't have much of a choice, for example, I endorse the Libertarian Senate candidate in Indiana, and would in Nebraska if one was running.

[nlm]

Winning and losing are often a matter of perspective. Osama, in conjuction with the mismanagement of the "war or terror" by our government, is bleeding the American tax payer (and their kids, and their kids kids) fairly badly - which (by the way) was a stated goal of his.

And if that were your goal, along with turning the population of the middle east completely against America and decreasing our standing as a moral authority in the world - one could argue that you were handing us our ass on a silver plate. Osama may be kicking back and keeping low while he laughs his ass off at us, because Bush is accomplishing Osama's goals of bleeding us financially and destroying our world image without Osama having to lift his hand at this point.

But, while we have been fighting the war on terror like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest - there is still plenty of time to change that. But that will take quite a bit more than a bunch of jingoism being spouted by politicians - which is all we seem to be getting.

[YRABNNRM]

Call me in ten years.

[MODU]

Yes. 

[TexasGurl]

No.

[Nym90]

No, because what it is costing us is hurting us a lot more than the benefits at the moment, which overall makes our nation weaker in the long run, which would be my definition of a loss in a war.

Of course, there will always be terrorism in the world in some form or another, just as there will always be poverty, crime, and drugs. Wars on these types of things can never really be over, which is a big part of what makes it so expensive.

Not to say we shouldn't still try, but the excuse for certain actions being acceptable because "we are at war" loses a bit of its salience.

[Nym90]

I'll put it as simply as I can. Is the US Military winning? Yes. Are the American people winning? No. We have once again been forced to digest war-time propaganda from both sides, our domestic crisis' are now being ignored once again, the economy is once again going down the tubes. Yes, we killed "errorists A and B, but at the end of the day...what does that really do for the American people. Not a damn thing.

Exactly. We've been forced to spend our time and resources on this rather than other pressing issues and to give up freedoms, and in that sense the terrorists have won by disrupting our way of life and lowering our standard of living.

[BushKenya]

I reluctantly voted no, but in some sense I think neither side is winning and here's why.  Let's take the American/Coalition side for starters:  We have captured and killed many of the terrorists and have forced them to regroup many times which they have been doing quite well.  Vlad is right when the killing of terrorist A and B don't mean a thing overall especially with the mastermind Osama Bin Laden still on the loose and drumming up attacks and potential attacks.  American soil hasn't been attacked in five years, but there has been at least one terrorist attack or foiled attack once a year since 2001 in pro-American countries (or pro-Western countries).  One may dispute, and rightfully so, Bali being a pro-Western city, but you get my point.  We have given up a bunch of freedoms, so in that regard, yes the terrorists are winning.  On the other hand, one could make a case that America is winning because right or wrong Bush refuses to back down on his beliefs.  He is a very head-strong president, and for that I respect him.  He doesn't give in to anybody.  If we were to up and pull out of Iraq, then while that would save probably hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers' lives, it would hand the terrorists a victory because they would say "YOU COWARDS" and then next thing you know Little Havana in Miami is gone, or the Sears Tower in Chicago is flattened, or the Space Needle in Seattle is pointing horizontal while laying on the ground, or you get the picture, and then we're right back to square one this time with 3,000 less troops to do it with.  The war has not damaged our economy, though, because while we are spending billions of needless dollars in Iraq, our stock markets continue to rise, there hasn't been a interest rate hike in a few months, the gas prices are going down to between $2.00 and $2.30 in most areas.  Oil prices are down in the $50 a barrel range, I think.

I do agree that Bush needs to stop depending on the "Royal Family" for oil, and need only look to the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles, very rich in oil.

[Secretary Polnut]

Like I've said right from the beginning, you cannot fight a war against an abstract concept.

Agreed - how can you win a war when what constitutes a victory cannot be defined.

[angus]

I reluctantly voted no, but in some sense I think neither side is winning and here's why.  Let's take the American/Coalition side for starters:  We have captured and killed many of the terrorists and have forced them to regroup many times which they have been doing quite well.  Vlad is right when the killing of terrorist A and B don't mean a thing overall especially with the mastermind Osama Bin Laden still on the loose and drumming up attacks and potential attacks.  American soil hasn't been attacked in five years, but there has been at least one terrorist attack or foiled attack once a year since 2001 in pro-American countries (or pro-Western countries).  One may dispute, and rightfully so, Bali being a pro-Western city, but you get my point.  We have given up a bunch of freedoms, so in that regard, yes the terrorists are winning.  On the other hand, one could make a case that America is winning because right or wrong Bush refuses to back down on his beliefs.  He is a very head-strong president, and for that I respect him.  He doesn't give in to anybody.  If we were to up and pull out of Iraq, then while that would save probably hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers' lives, it would hand the terrorists a victory because they would say "YOU COWARDS" and then next thing you know Little Havana in Miami is gone, or the Sears Tower in Chicago is flattened, or the Space Needle in Seattle is pointing horizontal while laying on the ground, or you get the picture, and then we're right back to square one this time with 3,000 less troops to do it with.  The war has not damaged our economy, though, because while we are spending billions of needless dollars in Iraq, our stock markets continue to rise, there hasn't been a interest rate hike in a few months, the gas prices are going down to between $2.00 and $2.30 in most areas.  Oil prices are down in the $50 a barrel range, I think.

I do agree that Bush needs to stop depending on the "Royal Family" for oil, and need only look to the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles, very rich in oil.

that's actually a damn good post.  Just one minor appendix:  some might also include the petroleum-rich wilderness sweeping down, northward, from the Brooks Range to the shores of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in Alaska.  The sprawling oil fields surrounding Prudhoe Bay produce more than 15 percent of the United States' domestic oil supply, along with 90 percent of Alaska's state revenues!  Some 15 million acres in the middle of the slope, including the lucrative oil fields, are owned by the state, but most of the rest (except for a few parcels owned by the native Inupiat) belongs to you and me, buddy.  We could poke it with a stick and see if we can't get some bubblin' crude.  Oil, that is.  Texas Tea.

or is that too controversial for ya?

[BushKenya]

I reluctantly voted no, but in some sense I think neither side is winning and here's why.  Let's take the American/Coalition side for starters:  We have captured and killed many of the terrorists and have forced them to regroup many times which they have been doing quite well.  Vlad is right when the killing of terrorist A and B don't mean a thing overall especially with the mastermind Osama Bin Laden still on the loose and drumming up attacks and potential attacks.  American soil hasn't been attacked in five years, but there has been at least one terrorist attack or foiled attack once a year since 2001 in pro-American countries (or pro-Western countries).  One may dispute, and rightfully so, Bali being a pro-Western city, but you get my point.  We have given up a bunch of freedoms, so in that regard, yes the terrorists are winning.  On the other hand, one could make a case that America is winning because right or wrong Bush refuses to back down on his beliefs.  He is a very head-strong president, and for that I respect him.  He doesn't give in to anybody.  If we were to up and pull out of Iraq, then while that would save probably hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers' lives, it would hand the terrorists a victory because they would say "YOU COWARDS" and then next thing you know Little Havana in Miami is gone, or the Sears Tower in Chicago is flattened, or the Space Needle in Seattle is pointing horizontal while laying on the ground, or you get the picture, and then we're right back to square one this time with 3,000 less troops to do it with.  The war has not damaged our economy, though, because while we are spending billions of needless dollars in Iraq, our stock markets continue to rise, there hasn't been a interest rate hike in a few months, the gas prices are going down to between $2.00 and $2.30 in most areas.  Oil prices are down in the $50 a barrel range, I think.

I do agree that Bush needs to stop depending on the "Royal Family" for oil, and need only look to the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles, very rich in oil.

that's actually a damn good post.  Just one minor appendix:  some might also include the petroleum-rich wilderness sweeping down, northward, from the Brooks Range to the shores of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in Alaska.  The sprawling oil fields surrounding Prudhoe Bay produce more than 15 percent of the United States' domestic oil supply, along with 90 percent of Alaska's state revenues!  Some 15 million acres in the middle of the slope, including the lucrative oil fields, are owned by the state, but most of the rest (except for a few parcels owned by the native Inupiat) belongs to you and me, buddy.  We could poke it with a stick and see if we can't get some bubblin' crude.  Oil, that is.  Texas Tea.

or is that too controversial for ya?

Why thank you, angus.  I forgot to mention Alaska, and thank you for adding that.  The only thing I have against Texas is their college football teams, not anything that really matters, such as oil or political ramifications.  Thats why I mentioned in the post Oklahoma and Texas panhandles.  I could have said just the panhandles, but I didn't, because I like to give credit where credit is due.

[angus]

Yeah, well I'm a Longhorn.  Class of '90.  But I'll let that slide since I know that the main difference between UT and the University of Oklahoma is basically the same as the difference between Culture and Agriculture.

Anyway, yeah, the congress feels that authorizing drilling in the parts of the arctic national wildlife reserve is tantamount to political suicide, given that the short-attention-span public rarely reads articles, just headlines.  And no one wants the headline:  Senator X favors drilling on Alaska's North Slope.  And, to tell the truth, there may be some value in depleting foreigners' oil reserves before depleting our own.  It wasn't that long ago that we were in the position of the modern Saudi and Japan was in our position.  In fact, that's pretty much what started our involvement in World War 2.  Also, the Inupiat ought to have some say in what comes floating down their rivers.

Still, I agree with you that we needn't be in this position.  And we shouldn't be so kneejerk against exploratory drilling on public lands in alaska.  I also agree that we're not "winning" the war on terror, but only reluctantly do I say NO.  The rest of your post was really good speculation. 

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

We're winning in some areas, and losing in others. Militarily we have the clear advantage. It's much more difficult for them to make coordinated efforts. But on the other hand that means Al Queda is more of an ideology now than an organization, which makes it much harder to eradicate. Also it's certainly costing us a hell of a lot of money, and our domestic ills are indeed being ignored as has been brought up. More or less we have to fight terrorism to a certain degree, but going about it the right way is not going to be easy. Also getting a clear picture is difficult, so we'll really just have to wait and see on the results.