America will never win the 'War on Terror'

I would like to say that in some regard i have been playing devils advocate with some of my original points. .. but i do believe that America are fighting in many regards an unwinnable war in the middle east. Ok. .. so Con took great issue with my definition with the concept of what the ‘war of terror' actually is. I do not believe for a moment that the debate is rendered ‘meaningless' as Con suggested due to my lack of definition of what the ‘war on terror' is. .. .unless anyone reading this debate has been living in a box for the last 10 years then i can safely assume that we all know that the ‘war on terror' is the battle against Muslim extremism. Con definition of the war on Terror was as follows. ‘The well-defined goal of the war on terror is to stop hostile action by terrorists against the United States. A well-defined subordinate goal is to remove safe havens wherein terrorists may devise attacks without fear of preemption. ' I have to say that i do not believe that this definition is rounded at all. If one looks at Cons definition it is still extremely transparent. .. .Yes its true that we are fighting a war against terrorist. .. the whole of the free world is fighting the same war. .. .Yes its true that we are trying to find their safe havens to prevent future attack. .. .. but what i implore the readers to consider when reading Cons definition of the ‘war on terror' is its vagueness. .. .we don't no who these terrorists are. .. .we don't no where they come from. .. how they are armed and so on. .. .. so i feel Cons definition barely scrapes the surface of a deep and complex issue. As recently as January 2009 the British foreign secretary himself claimed that the idea of a ‘war on terror' was deeply unhelpful and does more harm than good. .. .his exact words were as follows. .. .. ‘Ultimately, the notion is misleading and mistaken" and later said "Historians will judge whether [the notion] has done more harm than good". Con then went on to bizarrely compare the ‘war on terror' with the Cold War. .. i understand to an extent why he did this. .. .Yes the west defeated the East. .. and yes to an extent the west was fighting Communist ideology. .. but let's not get bogged down in idealism which is what i feel Con is trying to do. .. look beyond your patriotic zeal and you will see that the Cold War was won due to economics not ideology. .. .American spending power could not be matched by the Russia and its proxy states. .. .so it folded. .. .the fact that the Communist party is still the second largest in Russia today shows out right that it was not the lure of democracy that encouraged Russia to end the Cold War. .. .. therefore showing you can't defeat an idea. It is also wrong to compare ‘ war on terror' to the Cold War from a geopolitical stand point. .. .the fact is. .. .that during the Cold War we knew exactly who we were fighting. .. .we knew where the enemy was (primarily Russia and china and there proxy states). .. we had an idea of how many weapons they had and what they wanted to achieve. .. but more importantly . .. there was always room for negotiation. .. now compare this to the ambiguity of the war on terror. .. .is there anyone here who can truly say they know where the ‘terrorists' are? .. .. do we have exact knowledge of their strength and numbers? .. .. do we know what they are planning to do next? .. .. the answer is no. .. .you cannot defeat an idea or a belief. Con is ultimately playing a dangerous game by being so loose on his definitions. .I believe that by simply calling people ‘terrorists' and being insular in your outlook one creates a dividing line. .. .. we can already see it with American foreign policy. .. the catch phrase. .. 'your either with us or against us'. .. is terribly dangerous. .. it effectively draws a line between America and the east and simplifies a tremendously complex issue. America needs to be clear what its goals are or it can never win its ‘war on terror. Con asks me at the end of his article what i propose the alternatives are. .. do we just give up the struggle? .,. .. well i propose this question to him. .. how does he propose on fighting a failing war? Does he even know how groups like Al Queda are organized? .. .. let me fill him in briefly. .. and it will shed light on what an impossible task we have confronting us. .. . Al queda has a central command structure like any organization ranging from financial departments, training committees even media relation committees. .. .however Al queda is unique in that it has an outer periphery which even its leaders have no real control over. .. Clandestine cells exist all over the world and are organized in such a way that they work independently from Al quedas central hub. .. .These members do not take orders from anyone. .. they work in Al quedas name and attack targets which they choose. .. how can you stop this? .. .. what stopping me right now from setting up my own cell? The answer is nothing,,, Leonard Weinbergs book ‘Global Terrorism' sums it nicely. . ‘Although the network of terrorist cells has an established leadership and command structure, direct approval from the top is not necessarily needed to commit an act of terrorism in al Qaeda's name. Militants operating within the al Qaeda structure are divided into small, independently operating cells. These cells may receive orders and financial support from top Qaeda lieutenants or they may raise funds and plan operations on their own' Although i would like to expand on this point i am aware that i have a word limit. .. .but the point here is clear. .. you can't monitor these terrorist groups. .. just look at the London Tube bombings. .. they acted on there own independently from any central Al queda Command. .. .we are literally chasing shadows. My final point is as follows. .. .I made the case in my original argument that the longer America stays in Iraq and Afghanistan the longer and more protracted the war will be. .. .I also said that the whole reason behind Al quedas original beef with America was centred on the idea that America had trodden on Muslim soil during the First Gulf war. .. Con dismissed this as ‘nonsense' and regrettably exposed his lack of knowledge of this conflict. .. .again i don't want to drift on to a long and boring explanation of the origins of the conflict but i would say this. .. . The whole premise of Bin Ladens first attacks on America were due to its occupation of Saudi Soil. .. Saudi Arabia is home to Mecca and Medina the holiest sights in the Muslim world. .. the Vatican or the Jeruselem of the Christian world. .. .The Saudi government rejected the offer of Bin Ladens Mujuhadin or ‘Holy Warrioirs' to protect them during the First Gulf War and instead chose the Americans without thinking of the idealogical consequences. .. .again i defer to the words of Leonard Weinberg. .. ‘This decision infuriated Bin Laden. Not only was his offer to provide Holy Warriors rebuffed but, more galling still, the government decided to allow the Kingdom , with its Muslim holy sites at Mecca and Medina, to be used against the Infidel Americans. ' The American presence in Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern locations is the seed that grew to 9/11. .. for Con to say that its ‘nonsense' simply shows he does not understand the complexities of the conflict. .. The longer America stays in Iraq and Afghanistan the worse the conflict will become. .. i am in no way saying that there are not those who want America to stay. .. but for as long as America stays the voices of extremism will drown out the moderate voices in the Islamic world. .remember it is one of Alquedas original goals to expel all American and western influence from the muslim world. .. . I am running out of room but very breifly. .. Con has not defined what the conflict is. .. his cold war comparison is wrong from a geopolitical perspective. .. America is chasing shadows. .. i beleive the motion stands.