The "War on Terror" is a futile effort and a waste of resources.

Before we get started, I we both strayed from the original prompt. You seem hard struck on combating terrorism, that is fine. It"s a good goal, but I am speaking specifically about how the U.S had decided to handle the situation and how it is going to drain the treasury (already in debt) and spawn more hate from extremists. You say war is a terrible thing, but we need to make sacrifices to stop terrorism. If terrorist were in London, and we didn't agree with how their government was handling it, do you think that the same tactics we use in the Middle East would be accepted? Would it be acceptable for us to permanently deploy troops to keep the peace in Europe, Asia, Africa too? I know this isn't about other countries, but I think you assume too much when you say war is a terrible thing, but it has to be done. That in itself is a debate. ("What makes you think that a few years of targeted bombing and forced government reform will change the minds of people who have known war for so long?" Well that's hardly an accurate representation of my stance, somewhat of a straw man really.) Is that really a straw man argument, because this is what I mean..? You said that, "However their goals also include changing society to their liking, enforcing conformity, and killing anyone who will not conform or that stands in their way." Part of what infuriates the extremists is that they see us in the same exact light as above. The middle east has had extremists, before and after the U.S even existed. To them, we are children getting involved in their holy war. It's very similar to the crusades. You say that we "need" to control them, to slow the growth of terrorism. Need is an important word, because it basically encompass this entire argument. I have been arguing that the U.S "needs" to scale back and change to more concentrated ops and humanitarian aid to build up infrastructure. You believe that the current course of troops, bombing runs, and other more direct approaches are necessary. (correct me if I'm wrong about the above) If I accept that we "need" to continue the course like you believe, then how long will the war continue? Will it stop after we cripple ISIS? No, there will likely be new terrorist cells targeting us by then, or even splinter cells of ISIS. So the U.S continues the good fight, stemming the growth of those new cells for another campaign. There will always be another Osama, or Sudam, that is the nature ot the war torn Middle East. Like I have said multiple times before, the Middle east has been stuck in countless internal conflicts for a very long time and the end to this theme is nowhere in sight. As long as there is conflict, there is a possibility of terrorist that oppose the U.S. Because we "need" this war in order to keep terrorists in check, we will be fighting with no foreseeable end. I am no economist, but a never ending war is not sustainable. Especially while other important aspects of running the country are on the table. And as seen by the very people we are fighting, never ending conflict is not great for your people. As my original argument stated "The War on Terror is a futile effort and a waste of resources." During this never ending war we have hypothetically decided is necessary, the media, both foreign and domestic, continue to broadcast stories about the War on Terror in the Middle East. This helps to fulfill one of the goals of terrorism we agreed upon, which is to, "...spread their cause and their name to as many people as possible." "Another goal of terrorists is to cripple their target or frighten others until they give into their demands." Which you replied... "If we were to pull out of the middle east, that would actually be surrendering to their goal. If we cease to fight their efforts, we will be giving in to their demands and wishes, and they will succeed." We may be giving into their demand to leave, but my argument is that we can"t afford not to. I want to refocus on what this argument is really about. I am not arguing that terrorists should be ignored. I am arguing that the current way the U.S chooses to engage terrorism in the Middle East is a waste of resources and that in the current way, the U.S can"t possibly win. You don"t defeat terrorism, it is a collection of thoughts and ideas just like religion. Entire countries have tried to destroy other religions since the day people of different religions met each other. If you really think we need to continue to combat this just as the govt. is right now, then we are looking at freakish spending, deaths of countless innocents, and a blatant turn of the shoulder to countless internal affairs in the U.S that need funding and attention. This is not about terrorist getting what they want overseas. It"s lord of the flies over there. The power struggles will continue to happen no matter who we blow up or shoot. That is, unless the U.S makes changes to their tactics in this "War on Terrorism." My proposal, which I admit was not clear in the beginning of this argument, is a change of tactics. Providing humanitarian aid and conducting ops like the one that ended with Osama Bin Ladin's death seems much more productive. If we want to get rid of terrorism, then we need the people there to become educated in a way that stops hostility. We need to help improve infrastructure and stand up for the innocent populace. I don"t want to get into too much detail with what changes should be made, because the important point is that the current tactics are not working nor going to work. The current strategy is only slowing their progress, but not solving the problem. You say that the terrorists outnumber the peaceful citizens, then how is allowing casualties of the people we are supposed to protect, helping?