How long do you think the USA will be bogged down in the "War on Terror"?

Presuming the "War on Terror" can be won by the USA:

How long to do you think the USA will be bogged down in the "War on Terror"?

If you think it cannot be won by the USA then vote for the "Forever" option.

If US troops are withdrawn, around 8-10 years (based on the Algerian Islamic-War experience in the 90s), the time to people to be fed-up with the blood shed and to find their own solutions: new Taliban (at least they brought peace and stability with their tyranny) or a new Saddam… If US troops stay, just add the time they stay…

10 more years to neutralise the Taliban and various other terrorist organisations, however this won't stop them popping up. As soon as the USA pulls out of anywhere, it will just devolve into more terrorist cells springing up in civil war.

Well the first problem is that it just is not a war the US can win alone. It is not the US vs. Terror and if it is fought that way then the US will no doubt go down in flames. But it will be a matter of everyone going down, one nation at a time.

It is not a war on Islam either and if it is approached that way soon it will be.
The nations of the world had better come to grips with this or it is going to get a lot worse.

If there is not a concerted effort within Islam to rid its self of radical terror elements then soon it will be a war on them.

It is going to take a lot more than a Government just paying lip service to help. The Saudi's will have to do something to bring Wahhabisam back from the brink or cut its money off or it will bring them down one way or another.

It is not going to be a one country at a time victory the way the US approached it either…as is evident in Iraq.

The tin hats in Islam will just play up the already paranoid feelings present world wide to radicalise more and more of the Muslims.

The idiots who see it as a US war are going to bring the roof down on themselves as well. What happened in Spain, and was tried in Briton…, to some good effect I might add, is only and encouragement to the terrorists. It is obvious that it is a case of stand together or hang separately and one in which the Islamic Communities of all nations are going to have to play a positive role or suffer for their own short sightedness.

There will always be terrorists; Islamo-fascists, Christian fundamentalists, Maoists, Anarchists,...

Even *if* you'd be able to neutralize one group another will probably rise up, terrorism might sound like a new thing, but secret societies trying to disrupt society for their own sake have been as old as civilization itself.

You'll probably get tired after a few years of chasing windmills though, like the war on drugs has lost most of its momentum, so will the war on terror eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

There will always be terrorists; Islamo-fascists, Christian fundamentalists, Maoists, Anarchists,...

Even *if* you'd be able to neutralize one group another will probably rise up, terrorism might sound like a new thing, but secret societies trying to disrupt society for their own sake have been as old as civilization itself.

You'll probably get tired after a few years of chasing windmills though, like the war on drugs has lost most of its momentum, so will the war on terror eventually.

---

The have been and always will be rebel groups who would like to topple one government or another but there is a fundamental difference in this one. It is not aimed at one government but at all non-sharia governments. Anyone placing a value on free thought and individual liberties should be concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

The have been and always will be rebel groups who would like to topple one government or another but there is a fundamental difference in this one. It is not aimed at one government but at all non-sharia governments. Anyone placing a value on free thought and individual liberties should be concerned.

---

The Anarchism movement in the early 20th century (or was it late 18th) was global too. The main difference between these new terrorists and the traditional ones is that these tend to target foreign countries and not their own. Still, it's a natural evolution in this brave new globalised world.

Quote:

---

What happened in Spain, and was tried in Briton…, to some good effect I might add, is only and encouragement to the terrorists.

---

Hold on there , what happened in Spain is that a government went against the wishes of most of the population by supporting some madcap scheme that was based on a pile of lies , then it went and lied again when it was attacked and its people were murdered .
The kicking out of that government is an encouraging sign for democracy and honesty, not an encouragement to terrorists .
What happened in Britain is similar in that the government went against the wishes of most of its people . But on its lies about the attacks on Britain , instead of blaming someone other than those who attacked it like the Spanish government did , they came in the form of "these attacks have nothing to do with our actions" .
The lies from the governments (clearly obvious lies) help the terrorists just as much as the terrorist actions themselves , possibly even more so since the terrorists don't have to put any effort or expence into it .

Quote:

---

It is obvious that it is a case of stand together or hang separately and one in which the Islamic Communities of all nations are going to have to play a positive role or suffer for their own short sightedness.

---

It is obvious that people will not stand together behind a pile of bullexcrement , the nations are hanging themselves with their own short sightedness .

a lot of countries with high islamic populations have been victims of terrorism too, including indonesia, malaysia, morocco, saudi arabia, turkey, algeria, iran, chechnya and of course iraq.

No future President will be able to claim that this war is 'won', simply because it can't be won - terrorism is one of the evils inherent in society, along with crime, greed and other derailed behavior. Then again, no future President will have the guts to officially end this war, which would be considered an admission of defeat.

I think it will slowly peter out and degrade into the same sort of expensive, oppressive and ultimately nonsensical 'low-intensity' campaign that is the 'war on drugs'.

The US vs. Terrorism is like an elephant trying to squish a fly, the fly can't really significantly hurt the elephant, but is too nimble for the Elephant to kill off quickly. The thing is declaring war on terrorism, isn't like declaring war on a country where there is a centralized position which the whole state is focused around. Terrorism is spread all around the world and even if a major part of terrorism is taken out, more will eventually arise to take its place simply because everyone cannot be happy in our world.

Voted 50 should have been forever since I do not believe that it can be won.

Presidents will continue to use terrorist accusations as an excuse to build out surveillance of the public and infringing legal security, democracy and rights of the individuals for many years to come. The Iraq war will probably end in retreat within 5 years, though. Since the current war on terrorism isn't really concerned with defending against terrorists it won't have any success. It will be improved defense at home and attempts at ideological campaigns against terrorism along with acting responsibly in foreign politics that has a chance of ending or significantly decreasing terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Everyone knows limited wars suck, and are never successful. You have to go all out.

---

What exactly do you mean by go all the way out? IMO things can be won with the current amount of investments of money or even a tenth of it if done right. It's not necessary to increase the effort, just direct it to something constructive.

And what's most hypocritical about this "war on terror" is when several European countries who have suffered no terrorism decides to terrorize their people by building out surveillance and infringing democratic rights as well...

I think USA must retreat in this war.Dont use a light, that becomes more darker, its a refrain we use when something doesnt need to be changed.

everytime i open this thread I get a certificate notice from www.benning.army.mil what the damn is that? When I examine it, it says it is authorized by the US gov. do you get these notices as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

everytime i open this thread I get a certificate notice from www.benning.army.mil what the damn is that? When I examine it, it says it is authorized by the US gov. do you get these notices as well?

---

Yes I do, quite weird.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

everytime i open this thread I get a certificate notice from www.benning.army.mil what the damn is that? When I examine it, it says it is authorized by the US gov. do you get these notices as well?

---

Yes I do.

They're watching us! I say! We must move on with The Plan at once or the damn Americans will catch us!

(or more likely just a spyware)

I also got it. I think it's Gelatinous Cube's signature image (when I pressed accept, it displayed, when I pressed decline, it didn't display).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Presidents will continue to use terrorist accusations as an excuse to build out surveillance of the public and infringing legal security, democracy and rights of the individuals for many years to come. The Iraq war will probably end in retreat within 5 years, though. Since the current war on terrorism isn't really concerned with defending against terrorists it won't have any success. It will be improved defense at home and attempts at ideological campaigns against terrorism along with acting responsibly in foreign politics that has a chance of ending or significantly decreasing terrorism.

---

Modded +5 Insightful/Truthful. Sums up my views nicely.

For the record, I think that the "War on Terrorism" is never going to truly end, but on the same token I think that much of what we call 'terrorism' would simply stop if we (the US and the UN) stopped mucking around on other soverign nation's affairs.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

The war on terror is what it is--at this moment in time it is our attempted pacification of the insurgent elements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Minus lip service, it is no more and no less than those two elements. Both can be won, and both are bogged down by political--not military--obstacles.

---

Absolute rubbish , neither can be won without sorting out the politics , besides which the main military obstacle is that you havn't got an army that is able to do the job .

Quote:

---

There are a lot of examples in this thread of people using the "facts" gleaned from this "war on terror" to their own political needs, focussing on using it to make their point, instead of actually taking it for what it is--an occupation where we've decided to handicap our capabilities.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: hey Cube you want it to be an occupation go ahead , make it an occupation . It will make it even harder to get any results , and will cost you a hell of lot more money ....bring back the draft:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: An occupation brings with it lots more responsibilities and lots more rules to "handicap" you .

Quote:

---

a bunch of hoo-hah

---

an accurate summation of your contribution:yes:
now I would say that your views are coloured from your indoctrination into military life , but since you wrote similar rubbish before you signed up that wouldn't be entirely correct would it .

Quote:

---

Limited war. Everyone knows limited wars suck, and are never successful. You have to go all out.

---

Hmmmmmm...as I wrote about your views when you said you were enlisting , I expect your attitude to find you a nice headline in a courts martial case , when you deploy and decide to go "all out" .:thumbsdown:

Pay him no mind Cube, the gendarmes will be along by and by.

Quote:

---

Pay him no mind Cube, the gendarmes will be along by and by.

---

Oh good , are they going to do something about the Benning popups that inhabit every thread GC has made a post in ?:whip:

Yeah, every time I open threads he's posted in Mozilla prompts me to check if it's certified or something. Rather irritating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oh good , are they going to do something about the Benning popups that inhabit every thread GC has made a post in ?:whip:

---

Working on the popup/cookie problem (also experienced here).

War in Iraq will be 'over' before August '08 (when the official election season begins). In Afghanistan before November '08*. Remember, you read it here first! :)

*note that 'over' = end of major deployments of us troops, and level of presence = 1 Brigade or less in the respective countries. Those countries, of course, left dangling in the winds of local pressures - given hope by the implied promise of the return of us troops... which will never occur.

Breeding, of course, more hostility to the us and the west in general, = more terrorist attacks by kids who are now 13, radicalized by the seemingly indiscriminate bombings and killings of their neighbors/schoolchums by the guys currently patrolling their streets.

This is Saturday. Get the hell out by Wednesday. We could. Why not?

[/endrant]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Working on the popup/cookie problem (also experienced here).

---

Firefox users can set adblock on the relevant image and the problem won't appear again.

The reason the US is bogged down in this war is a little thing called "Rules of Engagement". I watched a show about a battle in Iraq and the guy in charge of the operation almose crapped his pants because a stray bomb almost hit a mosque that the insurgents were in. Also there were several times where the soldiers were attacked but they could not attack back because the insurgents were in special zones, and the insurgents knew it. This war is being run like it is some sort of videogame or sport instead of a war. Also why is there no ban on firearms :dizzy2: ? It would make things alot easier. You let the people know that if they are caught walking around with guns they will be fired upon, then it will be easy to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignator

The reason the US is bogged down in this war is a little thing called "Rules of Engagement". I watched a show about a battle in Iraq and the guy in charge of the operation almose crapped his pants because a stray bomb almost hit a mosque that the insurgents were in. Also there were several times where the soldiers were attacked but they could not attack back because the insurgents were in special zones, and the insurgents knew it. This war is being run like it is some sort of videogame or sport instead of a war. Also why is there no ban on firearms :dizzy2: ? It would make things alot easier. You let the people know that if they are caught walking around with guns they will be fired upon, then it will be easy to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

---

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignator

The reason the US is bogged down in this war is a little thing called "Rules of Engagement". I watched a show about a battle in Iraq and the guy in charge of the operation almose crapped his pants because a stray bomb almost hit a mosque that the insurgents were in. Also there were several times where the soldiers were attacked but they could not attack back because the insurgents were in special zones, and the insurgents knew it. This war is being run like it is some sort of videogame or sport instead of a war. Also why is there no ban on firearms :dizzy2: ? It would make things alot easier. You let the people know that if they are caught walking around with guns they will be fired upon, then it will be easy to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

---

Maybe if you think about that statement for a while you'll realize why he freaked out.

Quote:

---

The reason the US is bogged down in this war is a little thing called "Rules of Engagement".

---

:thumbsdown: there are lots of reasons why the coilition is bogged down , and that certainly isn't a major one , in fact a change in the current rules would make things worse , which is a reason why the US is making an effort to jail or even kill the soldiers who break those rules .

Quote:

---

You let the people know that if they are caught walking around with guns they will be fired upon, then it will be easy to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: so far detatched from reality it's unbelievable someone could write that .


So lignator , there is this bloke walking down the road , he has a gun , do you shoot ? remember its easy to distinguish if he is a civilian or an insurgent ...how exactly ?
When tight rules of engagement are folllowed screw ups still happen , like a bloke walking down the road with a piece of furniture that police thought was a gun , so they killed him:oops:
When rules of engagement are relaxed mistakes happen , like a bloke reading a newspaper who looked a bit like an arab , so they killed him:oops:

Though since the topic is more about Iraq and Afghanistan how about some nice examples from there , say perhaps a group of armed men in a "bunker"....shoot them :yes: nice and easy :oops: pity they were the security detatchment for a government party office . Four blokes with guns in a car ...shoot them:yes: nice and easy :oops: pity they were a government ministers escort .
But hey we could have a really good screw up from another deployment where the rules of engagement allow for attacking armed people ...big compound , lots of armed people , lots of 4x4s just like the nasty warlords militia use ...shoot them :yes: what could be easier to distinguish eh ?:yes: :yes: :yes: :hmg: :charge: :oops: pity it was the UN commisioners compound

Quote:

---

This is Saturday. Get the hell out by Wednesday. We could. Why not?

---

Aw come on you know wednesday is out of the question .