End of the Global War on Terror?

CPT Zachary Brooks - I would say we are not in a state of real war. There isn't one declared by the President, by Congress, or by the military, so this shouldn't be a surprise.
We do not (or cannot) politically define the enemy, and rather we employ contingency operations to react to tactical threats as they emerge. Until you can walk down an American street and ask 10 people who we are at war with, and have the majority give you the same answer, then our nation is not really at war (even if our military finds itself in dangerous situations). The reality is if you asked 10 people who we are at war with, I would bet that 9 would say "what war?"

LTC Yinon Weiss - Sir, I agree with you. We have not declared war in an actual sense since WW II. We need to remain in a state of conflict to continue to line the pockets of our defense contractors and keep our supporters voting out of fear. It is a sad environment, but it feels like the military is more and more becoming a political tool (gays, transgenders, etc) instead of an actual national defense device.

Like the war on drugs? Lol

Having been to both Iraq and Afghanistan, neither enemy is the same. Both share qualities that seek to undermine our "Stability Operations", but the only type of War we wage is at home amongst our own people. Whether it be race, religion, or sexual orientation, the media has blown everything out of proportion and is detracting any positive efforts against "Terrorism". Without a cleary defined enemy(i.e. The War on Drugs), fighting an idea will never be successful. There are other posts and questions recently on rallypoint that ask why the United States have not won a true war since WW2. The answer is simple. We have only fought ideas the last 70+ years and ideas are the heart of a nation. Imagine if the tables were turned and somebody actually did invade us against the idea of Democracy. Countless numbers of different militias and gangs would actually unite in a semi-organized manner with some for of hierarchy to combat a comonn enemy. I feel like this may lead in the wrong direction, so I will stop here. Just my opinion...and a small rant for freedom.

SSG Cf Grant, you are correct, I have never seen myself as a veteran of GWOT.

Good question and good answer @Cpl Scott Schwerman

I will be sure to address him as President Obama from now on. Since we are on the subject, do we also refer to former presidents as, for example, "President Bush"?

PVT (Join to see) - Yes

Alright, thanks for the info, Captain. :)

PVT (Join to see) - You are my future learn and learn and take care that your mind and heart does not get high jacked by the BS here.

Sure you can. You're running with the (obvious) assumption that the US *wants* to win this war, or wants to defeat the terrorists in any case. In the American sense of the word, "terrorism" is when those we've supplies bites than hand that fed it...don't forget that we've directly funded AQ, Iraq, AQM (when we supplied "moderates" in Libya), Boko Harem (an effort to destabilise Africa, as 8 of the 10 fastest growing economies are there, under the patronage of the PRC), Al Nursa Front, &c.
Also, remember that at no point in Iraq was "defeating terrorism" our mission. Our mission was to leave as quickly as politically possible.
Now, in the name of GWOT, look what the government has achieved: the ability to lock away US citizens forever with no trial; even the ability to assassinate them for reasons they won't tell. The US PATRIOT ACT. Increasingly crazy NDAAs. The list goes on. The actions of our government have clearly shown their intentions with this war....