Progress against terror

[Franconicus]

Is there a progress in the war against terror or steps backwards.

Pros:
Killing or arresting some AQ leaders and fighters
destruction of training camps in Afghanistan
destruction of the Taliban regime
ending the rule of Saddam
no major attack inside the US
Bin Ladn has to hide

Cons:
Bin Ladn still free
AQ still active (Madrid, London)
terrorism introduced in Iraq, number of terror fighters increased
weakening of NATO and UN

Did we win so far or did we loose?

[PanzerJaeger]

I certainly expected more attacks in the US, so progress is going better than expected. Thats not to say its going as well as it could be..

[Al Khalifah]

I'm not sure any progress has really been made by either side. I can't imagine a world without terrorism, but I can't see a world of total terror.

I refuse to let these people affect my life though, so it does not concern me in the slighest.

[Viking]

Pros:
ending the rule of Saddam

Cons:
terrorism introduced in Iraq, number of terror fighters increased



Ending the rule of Saddam have made more people die every day thanks to increased terrorism in Iraq.

I can`t really see that as a too positive happenng in this perspective; were there really any terrorists with base in Iraq before the war?

As to the poll I think you missed at least one option, I don`t think we can say how the war`s going for sure. I really don`t know.

[Franconicus]

Sorry, I missed that.

[Don Corleone]

Well, if Viking gets to add his point, which I can't disagree with, I'm going to add that the war on terror didn't 'weaken NATO and the UN', they were already weak before we launched our first salvo at Afghanistan.

[Ser Clegane]

There is no progress I am aware of.

Of course one problem is to agree on how to measure progress.

Is it the number of terrorists killed?
Is it the number of terrorists at large (a bit hard to come up with reliable numbers here)?
Is it the number of terrorist attacks (hardly as terrorist attacks - outside Iraq - are fortunately not frequent enough to measure "trends" in a meaningful way)?

The fact that there was no major attack on American soil since 9/11 does not mean anything in terms of progress, as attacks on American soil have not been particularly frequent before 9/11 either.

[Franconicus]

Is it the number of terrorists killed? No, that is secondaryIs it the number of terrorists at large (a bit hard to come up with reliable numbers here)? The number, their potential, their activityIs it the number of terrorist attacks Yes

[Marcellus]

I can see no progress in addressing the causes of terrorism. Until the causes are dealt with, for every terrorist we kill or capture another one is recruited, maintaining the terrorist threat.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As to the poll I think you missed at least one option, I don`t think we can say how the war`s going for sure. I really don`t know.

He also missed the option that progress is as you expected which is my position.


I can see no progress in addressing the causes of terrorism
Weve addressed that. The cause is radical Islam. How do you intend to address it?

[Marcellus]

Weve addressed that. The cause is radical Islam. How do you intend to address it?

I don't know. How do you intend to address it?

[kiwitt]

If we look at the effects of each sides "Propaganda" on the level of new recruits to it's cause, you could say we are loosing ground.

Military Recruits: Declining Possibly (Some US offices not meeting Recruitment targets)
Terrorists Recruits: Increasing Possibly (Even country born and educated citizens can be recruited)

However, I think on balance, the terrorist threat has remained the same, because of the tighter security imposed to balance the increasing recruits. And have voted accordingly.

[bmolsson]

There are no progress. As long as it's seen as a war it will continue without any actual progress.

[JimBob]

None, fact is we are still very very vulnerable. If a radical came and convinced me to build a bomb and set it off in Chicago I, or anyone, could do it (this is of course hypothetical, no need for the black helicopters). Sure they can't get on planes and its very hard to get on trains, but buses have no real security, neither do private vehicals and I'll remind you that Oklahoma City and WTC '93 both used private vehicals and caused extensive damage. So in the measure that matters (posssibility of us getting blown up) we are about as vulnerable as we have always been.

[Franconicus]

[QUOTE=Gawain of Orkeny]He also missed the option that progress is as you expected which is my position.
[QUOTE]
I did!~:mecry:
Is there a way to change this?

[Ser Clegane]

Is there a way to change this?

Yes, there is - I added two more options (as suggested by Red Harvest and Gawain).

I am not sure if this option is limited to moderators - to you have an "Edit Poll" option (at the upper, righr corner of the poll - rather small)?
If so you can use that one to add/edit poll choices ~:)

[Franconicus]

Thank you! :bow:
You saved my day!

[Franconicus]

I think we are loosing ground. Fighting terror is never easy and I takes long. We had this experience in the 70ies and 80ies.

However I do not think that we have a good performance.

The US is the natural leader in this fight. They were hit hardest, they are the main target and they are the strongest nation. And they have been the leader of the free world since WW2.
But they cannot fulfill this role. They still suffer from the wounds of 9/11. Since 9/11 they are much too self focused to lead. They feel a big mistrust in their traditional allies. They are not willing and able to give up control neither to their allies nor to the UN.
They have the strongest army by far. And they try to rely on this army to fight terror. But a conventional army is not the right weapon to do this. Israel had to learn that. For me they had the best army but they could not win the intifada.
The US attacked Iraq. Saddam was an ugly dictator and getting rid of him is a good thing. He might even have been supporting the Hamas or other terror groups. But the link to AQ is weak and it is sad to see that most of the efforts are spend to fight in Iraq.
The US diplomacy alienated the allies. They could not support the American war in Iraq. However, they haven't managed to find their own way to fight the terror. So they are completly ineffective.

AQ had some bad days after the Afghanistan fightings. Their training camps were destroit and their leaders were chased. I think even the attack on their financial structure was a success.
Since then they recovered. Bin Ladn could escape and is still free. This is unbelievable. The focus on Iraq gave them a break. And it gave them an ideal recruitment opportunity.
The fightings in Afghanistan are still going on. After the US put their focus to Iraq Taliban is gaining ground again. I think the western forces can keep a stand off but I do not see a successful end of the operations in Afghanistan.

The war in Iraq was started and now it has to be fought until the successful end. But it will tie the American forces for a long time.
I think it is time that the free world and all their allies and friends share the tasks. The US should fight in Iraq until there is a stable and free nation. The European should focus on AQ.
How could they manage this? The UN is damaged after the Iraq war and not accepted by the Americans. The EU is not in a constitution to lead. So one of the big European nations has to lead. GB is too much involved in Iraq. Germany is willing to support but not willing to lead. France would be the ideal leader for the European. They have a lot of expierience with moslems and islam countries, they have a good armiy that is used to fight in other countries. They will be accepted by all other Europeans and all non Europeans as well.
And we have to get Bin Ladn. How can the world be big enough to escape?

[econ21]

I think we are losing ground, primarily because the Iraq invasion has created a lot more terrorists. At least some of the insurgents, e.g. those associated with Al Zarqawi, are clearly terrorists in the OBL mold and the number of attacks they are committing seems very high. The fact that those attacks are in Iraq and the US is irrelevant to me.

Toppling the Taliban and so ending their support for AQ bases was a major victory. But I can't help feel we did not follow through. Partly because many of the terrorists, eg OBL escaped, and partly because I don't think we are supporting the new regime enough. Already the Taliban seem to be making something of a come back.

There's a lot still to play for, though. A stable democratic Iraq and Afghanistan would be major victories, if they can be secured. However, I can't help thinking that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Algeria are more important breeding grounds for terrorism and it's not clear anything much is being done to change that situation.

[JAG]

We are clearly loosing ground, when 4 years nearly after Sept 11 we can have attacks in the middle east with the hatred and fire there still is, attacks in the west with the same hatred and the continual and growing anti US / west feeling, we are making no progress.

Many on these boards think that 'no attack on US = we are winning!' That just shows certain peoples complete self centered, backward thinking that causes the problems in the first place and their complete lack of regard for anyone bar their own.

[PanzerJaeger]

Whoa, there are new poll options on here, i didnt know you could edit a poll.. :inquisitive:


Many on these boards think that 'no attack on US = we are winning!' That just shows certain peoples complete self centered, backward thinking that causes the problems in the first place and their complete lack of regard for anyone bar their own.

If you're refering to me that is not the case at all. I expected plenty more attacks in the US and there havent been any. The shift to Europe occasionally and the mideast primarily is a good step in my opinion.

Quite frankly Europe is an easier target. Its closer to the mideast, there are much larger muslim communities, and immigration and visas are easier in Europe. I dont like that and I hardly think that its a good thing theyve started attacking in Europe instead of the US, but I do think the shift to easier targets is a good sign.. not too mention the fact that they are trying to defeat the strongest military coalition in the world at the same time.. there are only so many jihaddis to go around.

[Franconicus]

There might be also other reasons for that.
Terror always tries to strike where you do not expect it. This increases the terror. After 9/11 there were two strikes in Europe. I guess many Americans think like you and that increases the chance of an attack.
QBL offered a cheasefire to Europe. They rejected and now he thinks he has to react.

[Kagemusha]

I really dont know,whether we are winning or loosing.I just dont have the nessecerily data available to form up an opinion.

[The Stranger]

progress is as i expected.....No real progress...terrorism is as guerilla warfare impossible to win for those who are not one of the guerilla/terrorism fighters....terrorism is winning cuz as the name says they want to frighten people...and almost everyone in the western world is hiding in they're basements.

[Franconicus]

We actually won the fight against the RAF.

[Templar Knight]

are the Red Army Faction still around?

[Franconicus]

No! :thumbsup:
They even think to pardon the first.

[Ser Clegane]

We actually won the fight against the RAF.

But they never were more than just a couple of people - and I almost have the feeling that the defeat was rather a mixture of "us" catching some of them and "them" kind of losing interest in their fight.

[Franconicus]

But they never were more than just a couple of people - and I almost have the feeling that the defeat was rather a mixture of "us" catching some of them and "them" kind of losing interest in their fight.
I agree. But maybe that is the silver bullet. Make them loose interest in fighting us.
By the way, I think the end of the USSR helped a lot.
I just mentioned it to show that there is at least one example that one can overcome terror.

[Viking]

Yes, there is - I added two more options (as suggested by Red Harvest and Gawain).

What about me?:stunned: ~:cheers:


I am not sure if this option is limited to moderators - to you have an "Edit Poll" option (at the upper, righr corner of the poll - rather small)?

That`s for moderators only, can you have a talk with Tosa about that? :rolleyes: ~:cheers:

[Ser Clegane]

What about me?:stunned: ~:cheers:


Oops ... I actually meant you ... don't know why I wrote Red Harvest - he did not even post in this thread.
I guess I should drink less coffee :freak:


I agree. But maybe that is the silver bullet. Make them loose interest in fighting us.

Definitely the best way - less bloody for sure. In the case AQ that would probably mean making it more difficult for them to find willing new terrorists.

Not sure how this could be achieved - but I do not think that the total destruction of the AQ network would be an easy task either.

[The Stranger]

i think so, cuz i dont have that button

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well if AQ were to read this poll Im sure it would warm the cockles of their hearts to see how miserably you all think we are doing. No wonder were losing(not my position) with beliefs like this.

This war wont be decided by military action any more than NAM was but by winning over the hearts and minds of the otherside. According to this poll the enemy is indeed winning this battle.

[Franconicus]

Yes, we should increase our faith, not our efforts. That will frighten AQ ~:eek:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, we should increase our faith, not our efforts. That will frighten AQ

Telling your side your losing and the enemy their winning can only have a bad influence for your side. Showing the enemy that we have faith we will win will frighten the enemy more surely. How is it none of you seem to say that everytime they attack us like they did in London it creates more of us who want to destroy AQ? No only when we attack them it makes them stronger. It works both ways.

[Ser Clegane]

Telling your side your losing and the enemy their winning can only have a bad influence for your side. Showing the enemy that we have faith we will win will frighten the enemy more surely. How is it none of you seem to say that everytime they attack us like they did in London it creates more of us who want to destroy AQ? No only when we attack them it makes them stronger. It works both ways.

Actually I do not think that this poll was supposed to be a question of "faith" - but that it was asking for a realistic appraisal of the situation.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Actually I do not think that this poll was supposed to be a question of "faith" - but that it was asking for a realistic appraisal of the situation.

I ddnt bring up faith. Im just saying if AQ read this it certainly would encourage them. I dont think anyone here is capable of making an accurate assesment on this matter. Not even close to be being able to.

[Ser Clegane]

I ddnt bring up faith. Im just saying if AQ read this it certainly would encourage them. I dont think anyone here is capable of making an accurate assesment on this matter. Not even close to be being able to.

So would you say that the ones who say we are winning are also doing the cause a disservice because they a spreading a false sense of security?

[Franconicus]

Why? This is what we are talking about all the time. You keep on complaining that lefties position is weakening the fight we complain that the US government is doing the wrong thinks. If we cannot assess the situation at all what are we talking about?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So would you say that the ones who say we are winning are also doing the cause a disservice because they a spreading a false sense of security?

No because non of us are claiming that we are secure.


If we cannot assess the situation at all what are we talking about?

WE can try but we are woefully uniformed as to whats really going on. I doubt even the government knows for sure. If you asked people in 1942 on the allied side how the war as going the answer wouldnt be pretty. Does that mean we should have quit? Should we have told the Germans and Japs they were beating the snot out of us and asked the governent to stop?

[JimBob]

WE can try but we are woefully uniformed as to whats really going on. I doubt even the government knows for sure. If you asked people in 1942 on the allied side how the war as going the answer wouldnt be pretty. Does that mean we should have quit? Should we have told the Germans and Japs they were beating the snot out of us and asked the governent to stop?
Who said quit? All I hear is "Do it better damnit." As to our assesments they are as accurate as possible, because I know for a fact that after maybe a day a reaserch and a day of work any one of you could build a bomb and set it off. And the people who are spreading the message to do this remain at large, if they had been caught it would be everywhere.

[Navaros]

i say there is no progress because every time the USA kills some Muslims, then there are other Muslims to take their place. there are a whole heckuva lot of Muslims in the world who believe in the Koran with all their hearts

so unless the USA is gonna become determined to kill all of them, i do not think they will ever run out of Muslims to fight

hence "progress" can not really be made. you destroy some insurgent camps, big deal. other ones will sprout up elsewhere to replace them.

[Red Harvest]

I'm not seeing the level of progress I expected. We haven't caught the big fish. The way the Iraq campaign was justified, timed, and the post war management of it have not helped. I don't think Iraq has really increased terrorism, rather shifted the focal/rally point for the terrorists. There are some encouraging signs in a few places such as Palestine and Lebanon, but less in others. Afghanistan was moved to the back burner on "simmer" and I think we will severely regret that later. Pakistan is a mess, the tribes are harboring many of the worst terrorists. Spain did exactly what terrorists wanted as a result of the Madrid bombing. (Yes, the party in power was stupid and wrong to try to blame the attack on Basque separatists and I don't blame Spain for ejecting them--what concerned me was effectively giving the terrorists what they wanted as a result.)

To me the measurement of progress against terrorism comes down to not only how many/how severe the attacks are, but more importantly to the level of resolve by various nations and groups to combat it and GIVE IT NO REFUGE. While there has been a shift in the Islamic world in attitude, there is still a long way to go. Also, some elements in Europe seem too fractious on the issue, too apologetic for the terrorists.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

To me the measurement of progress against terrorism comes down to not only how many/how severe the attacks are, but more importantly to the level of resolve by various nations and groups to combat it and GIVE IT NO REFUGE. While there has been a shift in the Islamic world in attitude, there is still a long way to go. Also, some elements in Europe seem too fractious on the issue, too apologetic for the terrorists.

Somtimes you do sound like a real conservative ~D I whole heartally agree with you here. You may be left of me but at least in your case I have no doubt that you are a patriotic American.

[Don Corleone]

See Red, we do agree on some things. ~:cheers:

Maybe I'll have to move your index up to 30. ~;)

[CBR]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050714/wl_sthasia_afp/usreligionislampoll_050714220538


Osama bin Laden is losing public confidence in several key Islamic countries, while growing numbers of Muslims are sharing Western concerns over extremism, a new survey found.

At least that sounds good.


CBR

[Kagemusha]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050714/wl_sthasia_afp/usreligionislampoll_050714220538



At least that sounds good.


CBR

Those are good news. ~:)

[Ice]

Ending the rule of Saddam have made more people die every day thanks to increased terrorism in Iraq.

I can`t really see that as a too positive happenng in this perspective; were there really any terrorists with base in Iraq before the war?

As to the poll I think you missed at least one option, I don`t think we can say how the war`s going for sure. I really don`t know.

To be honest... I don't Saddam supported terrorists in his country. I highly doubt he would want those insane people running around in his countrying blowing up his country/giving foriegn countries an incentive to invade.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Osama bin Laden is losing public confidence in several key Islamic countries, while growing numbers of Muslims are sharing Western concerns over extremism, a new survey found.

Dosent that mean we are making progress? And significant progress at that it seems. This is the only way we can beat him. I dont think those guys in Iraq are scoring many points killing Iraqis.

[Franconicus]

No because non of us are claiming that we are secure.



WE can try but we are woefully uniformed as to whats really going on. I doubt even the government knows for sure. If you asked people in 1942 on the allied side how the war as going the answer wouldnt be pretty. Does that mean we should have quit? Should we have told the Germans and Japs they were beating the snot out of us and asked the governent to stop?
Gawain,
If you check the possible answers of this thread again, please notice that there is no 'we are loosing this fight'. This is not an option to me. Not even thinkable.
But I do not agree that we will perform better by just closing our eyes and follow our leaders. We should calmly analyse the situation and think what we can do better.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain,
If you check the possible answers of this thread again, please notice that there is no 'we are loosing this fight'. This is not an option to me. Not even thinkable.,

Well then you missed another one. ~;)


We should calmly analyse the situation and think what we can do better.

Really? Thanks for the information. ~:confused:

[Colovion]

If progress means creating a safer world then...

No.

Progress would be the US realizing how ridiculous the present borders of Iraq are and dividing it into regions around Baghdad, Mosul and Basra. We have silly Arnold Wilson to thank for the unification of those three provinces. All three regions too disparate in geography and ethnically and yet, in colonial terms, the Rivers and Oil Fields created a reason to combine them for administration purposes. Then again, borders in the Middle East have a similar taste as those in the Balkans so doing away with them all together might be a step forward.