Can you win a war on global terror?

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 19:54:14 -0400

Is it possible to definitively win a global war on terror? So that it doesn’t return? What does victory on a global war on terror look like? At what point do you shift from an offensive posture to a defensive posture on global terrorism? Has terrorism from extreme groups and main governments been around for centuries or is it something new? What does defeat against global terror look like?

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Oct 26 at 2018 8:00 PM

CW3 Harvey K. — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 20:00:43 -0400

You might as well try to "stamp out evil" Chaplin. It will always reappear in some form. I have seen the scars on the Federal bank in downtown NYC. An anarchist left a horse drawn vegetable wagon there with a bomb. I doubt if he was a Muslim jihadist.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2018 9:37 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 21:37:37 -0400

No, not if the term "War on Terror" is taken literally. It was not an accurate term. But one can win a war on AQ and IS.

If the ideological and operational leadership is killed or imprisoned, then I consider the group itself destroyed. When we say that an enemy unit has been destroyed, do we mean that every single last enemy soldier has been killed or captured? No. But it has ceased to exist as a cohesive, functioning organization. Now, if the ideological and operational leadership is dead or imprisoned, then the edges of the group still exist, and may form new groups, some of which may claim the name of the original group, but that's just naming.

Can we militarily destroy Islamic terrorism (which attacked us on 9/11 and various other dates prior to that)? No. That won't happen until the sects of that religion which engage in terror mutate into a less bellicose faith. I think Bernard Lewis had it about right. Even then, however, there will be individual violent disturbed people who find an excuse (in their minds) for acting on their urges and frustrations by embracing the interpretation of Islam that was held by AQ and IS and other such groups. For a non-Islamic example of bad behavior by disturbed people reaching into history for inspiration, look at how neo-Nazis embrace all sorts of quasi-Norse mythological mumbo-jumbo.

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made Oct 26 at 2018 10:01 PM

SGT Joseph Gunderson — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 22:01:57 -0400

I think that the only way to actually combat the roots of the evil we are facing in this conflict is through combating corruption in various governments (particularly in the Middle East) as well as educating people. I think that the military involvement is necessary to keep the threat at bay but it will never eradicate it the way that it needs to be.

Response by Cpl Mark A. Morris made Oct 27 at 2018 1:09 AM

Cpl Mark A. Morris — Sat, 27 Oct 2018 01:09:16 -0400

Yes CPT.
But, the war can not just be fought in the physical fighting section. It has to be treated like the MOB. Deportations, fines, loss of property, jail and closing of Mosques for starters. That is just for the 90% of terrorism that is Islamic. Therefore, the war on terror will not be won. Because, to win would not be politically correct.
Transgender surgeries while on active duty paid for by the American tax payer for $200.00 please. Ding, Ding, Ding. We have the Daily Double.
Have a good evening CPT. Please ignor that last bit. I was being politically incorrect. The nerve of me.
Over.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Oct 27 at 2018 2:56 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sat, 27 Oct 2018 14:56:59 -0400

CH (MAJ) William Beaver Two schools of thought
- unilateral kill your way out of it: kill/capture everyone of them and those that provide support and refuge, no matter how big or small they are. dismantle the networks. Ignore what are considered no-go places, and kill them there too. Counter arguments: intelligence will not always be right. We will make some more enemies that wouldn't have been. We will make some Nation State enemies by taking direct action inside their borders. Are we willing to ignite a world war to route them all out. The confluence between internal and external issues in countries produces voids in the system. One man's terrorist is another nation's unofficial protector. EDIT: how much will we sacrifice to do this....indefinitely, it's like mowing the lawn?

- multilateral affirmation: all nations need to band together, exercise sovereignty over their territorial lands, generate negative pressure on all these groups. Allow them no quarter. Collect intelligence and take targeted action on the leadership and material support. The foot soldiers are pawns. Go after the grievances the terrorists use to recruit. Create conditions where their typical pawn will not bite.....sorry, can't blow up that rival mosque, I've got work in the morning. Prevent these groups from hijackng religion. When they have no where to operate and live in safety; their recruits are gone; and no one is buying what they are selling they'll wither and die on the vine. Counter Arguments: some countries struggle to exist and they are not strong enough to take these groups on, so to keep the internal peace they all conveniently ignore each other. These terror groups were born and raised by intelligence organizations and are shadowy extensions that allow plausible deniability to work their ends. There are failed states that just don't exist, God's little blind spot. These groups exercise fuedal control over swaths of the region through brute force and ignorance and in some cases deliver governmental services in the vacuum i.e. Somalia. Some countries simply ignore them, as they are not in their cross hairs and the groups are spoilers, distracting their adversaries while they work their own little intrigues off to the side. In some cases, the ire the groups generate distracts the masses from the home government's failures to deliver public goods and services, laying the blame on someone like the United States. How many governments will leverage this against dissident groups to clean up grudges and settle scores that have nothing to do with international terrorism? You have to be careful what you ask people to do.....they go do it.

The Jack Ryan in me likes the first one. Smoke'em outta their caves. Make them fear that Hellfire that could just be over their shoulder. How long can we keep that up? How much are we willing to spend? How many people are we going to piss off to do it. Make no mistake, there are bad actors in the world that just need killing, just where does it end? Demonstrating that we have the means, capacity, and the testicular fortitude to do it does have value.

The egalitarian statesman in me is drawn to nation's handling their sovereignty and security. If they can't do it, we'll come do it with them. Then we squeeze them all to the failed states, weak states, or sympathetic states. It does simplify the problem. We know where they are at and makes direct action easier and manageable. What we can't get after immediately is the remote proselytizing of loners on the internet. That takes a more introspective approach to internal politics and society. These loners seek acceptance and integration and are not finding it. So they withdraw. Then the voice from the web says....man here is your problem, you just ain't [insert group ideal] enough....but, if you join us and take up the fight against our enemies, then you will be the [insert group ideal]est of us all. Viola, bullet train to acceptance and in many cases, eternal salvation. If God's with us who can be against us, right? Doesn't hurt that I get back at those that shun me. The solution is the bad tasting medicine, we might have to break down and be nice to other people that are our neighbors.

So we do all these things. We do them right and they're unbelievablely effective, there is always going to be some person with bad wiring that is just evil...kind of what CW3 Harvey K. says. There is evil in the world, we just have to squeeze it down to where it can't persist and spread but it will remain.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Oct 27 at 2018 9:03 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Sat, 27 Oct 2018 21:03:32 -0400

Never defense.

Response by Evan Duda made Oct 29 at 2018 4:39 PM

Evan Duda — Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:39:14 -0400

To win a war against terror is to win a war against evil itself. It just really can't be done. Sure you can wipe out one kind of terror, but another will always emerge.

Response by CPL Chris Palmberg made Jan 19 at 2019 9:58 AM

CPL Chris Palmberg — Sat, 19 Jan 2019 09:58:37 -0500

Terrorism will always be with us. It is the nature of humanity to attempt to gain control over those seen as less... intelligent, righteous, worthy... than the protagonists. Exerting one's will on another through acts or threats of violence traces back to Cain.
Having gone maudlin, let me point out that GWOT was never about eradicating humanity's propensity for doing evil to others, but rather to dismantle the globalist aspects of... zealotism, terrorism, extremism, pick your personal favorite word to fit the view you have of GWOT. Islamic extremism has been a chronic issue in Western Civilization ranging back to Jeffersonian times at a minimum. As countries where that theology prevailed became more affluent due to a chokehold on Gibraltar, or Suez, or OPEC, the capabilities of those who followed extreme views became more potent. With the Digital Age came capabilities to coordinate small groups of zealots into an irregular global threat.

To win at GWOT, the Global aspects of it are what must be defeated...