America will never win the 'War on Terror'

1. Pro claims "...you [can't] wage war on an idea or 'ideology'. ... The phrase 'war on terror' was always far [too] ambiguous....its waging war on an idea or theme not a clear target. ... Clausewitz states in his Book 'On War' that without clear achievable aims one will find themselves in a difficult situation" 1.1 If Pro does not understand what "war on terror" means, then he has proposed a meaningless resolution and ought to immediately concede the debate. One cannot logically affirm a nonsense resolution. I suspect that instead he will find adequate meaning. 1.2 The conventional definition of war applies for defining the war on terror http://dictionary.reference.com... : 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, ... 2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other. 3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812. 4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words. 5. aggressive business conflict, ... 6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty. Clearly, the war on terror includes both active military operations (1, 2, 3) and ideological struggle (6). 1.3 The Cold War was a war against the Communist ideology. It included broad strategist goals like preventing the expansion of the Soviet empire in Europe and elsewhere in the world, but ultimate goal was to remove Communist ideology as a motivating force behind threats to the free world. that is precisely one of those ambiguous goals that Pro pronounces meaningless an unwinnable. In fact, Pro's arguments were made at the time to "prove" that the Cold War could not be won. The arguments were proved false; the Cold War was won by the West. The counter-argument could be made that there are still Communists in the world, and that they might make a comeback, so it is premature to declare a victory. However, it nonetheless remains proved that there is nothing impossible about defeating an ideology, and that accomplishing it does not require armies battling in the style of traditional warfare. Pro's claim therefore fails. 1.4 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. For example, Bush said with respect Iraq that victory will come, he said, "when Iraq is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists [and] when the Iraqis are able to defend their democracy." http://www.globalsecurity.org... 1.5 Britain fought and won a similarly ambiguous war against IRA terrorism. 2. Pro claims, "Americas continuing presence in the middle east and most notably Afghanistan and Iraq they will continue to increase hatred and suspicion amongst the people in the region." 2.1 The strategy of the terrorists in the Middle East and notably in Afghanistan has been to kill innocent civilians, destroy schools, hospitals and infrastructure; assassinate local leaders; diminish local security; and foil all attempts at democracy. American policy has been in every aspect the opposite. Pro believes that as a consequence the U.S. is hated and terrorists are beloved. Pro is wrong. A fundamental factor that turned the tide in Iraq was that the local population realized how detrimental the terrorist tactics were. The locals are able to figure this out, even though Western liberals cannot. 2.2 Americans do not want to be in the Middle East or Afghanistan and are eager to leave as soon as possible. Hence whatever resentment is caused by being there will be ameliorated by leaving. The successful strategy is therefore to train local forces to take over responsibility for maintaining local order, and to point out the progress achieved towards withdrawal of forces. the success of the surge in Iraq was providing security in the short run, which the local people care more about than U.S. forces being there, and to train the local forces to take over in the long run. Contrary to Pro's assertion that it could not work, it has worked. That general approach can be successful in Afghanistan. 2.3 Pro asserts, "I feel America has totally forgotten the main reason why Al queda and other terrorist organisations waged a 'jihad' on them in the first place...it was all down to the fact that American based itself in Saudi Arabia before the first gulf war which many felt was an insult to Islam" This is nonsense, along the lines of Hitler's excuse for invading Poland. The Al Queda types are nutcases who have no trouble feigning insults to rationalize their attacks. U.S presence on the Arabian Peninsula was done via legal agreements with the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Pro justifies the notion that the U.S. should ignore the legal and internationally recognized governments in favor of complying with terrorist demands. Note that the terrorist do not negotiate of even present themselves for negotiation, they only make demands. Bin Laden stated clearly in a face-to-face interview with a British journalist that he wants the death of every man, woman, and child in the United States. Does Pro believe that was brought on by having a minor US presence on the Arabian Peninsula? Does Pro believe that if the US had withdrawn that all terrorist acts would cease? Is there anything the terrorist have said that supports the idea that would satisfy the terrorists? 3. Pro claims, "I feel that America's idea of installing democracy in a country which for the past 2,000 has been led by a Islamic constitution with Islamic beliefs and traditions is wrong.....Americas brand of democracy is not always what people want .." The claim is based upon the false notion that 2000 years of a culture somehow alters the gene pool or poisons the water or pollutes the air in some mysterious way that necessarily will require something like 2000 years to be undone. In fact, all that matters is the culture under which the living population has grown up. The population of Iraq is young, so the vast majority have never experienced anything but Saddam and the brief post-Saddam era. That certainly maintained many Islamic traditions, but significant departures as well. How fast the culture makes further changes will depend upon future influences. For example, at the time of World War II most of the population of Japan had matured under the dominant influence of Japanese militarism, albeit with enduring cultural influences from centuries of tradition. The militaristic aspect of culture was effectively abolished within a decade or so of the end of the war. In the Middle East, no one wants or expects Islamic culture to be abolished. The goal is to reduce the minority jihadist element in Islam to the point of ineffectiveness. ===================== 4. I ask Pro what the alternative is to winning the war on terror. Quite obviously we are not going to agree to all be killed or to graciously submit to being slaves of Islamic terrorists. The present strategy is one of limited engagement by which safe havens are eliminated through the establishment of strong local governments. If that fails, the alternative is not losing and allowing bin Laden and his cohorts to win. If necessary, the war could be escalated to World War II levels, which today's world would mean fielding about 15 million American soldiers and mobilizing the entire economy for war. I don't believe for a minute that will happen, because it is clear that an effort of much smaller scope will be successful. However, for Pro to sustain the resolution that America will "never win" it means that American will either (a) give up and submit or (b) will fail despite the most massive conceivable effort to win. Neither (a) nor (b) is a defensible, so the resolution must therefore fail.