America will never win the 'War on Terror'

The war on terror is a struggle against Muslim fanatics whose announced and reiterated goal is to kill or enslave everyone in the world who is opposed to their imposition of fanatical Muslim rule, with a priority on Americans. http://www.emergency.com... Their tactic is to inflict mass suffering on civilian populations in order intimidate governments into surrender. Winning the war on terror means reducing the terrorist threat to the point were it is insignificant compared to other problems faced by society. Primary tactics used against the terrorists are cutting off the money sources that fund them; removing the safe havens they use for training and planning; preventing the terrorists from getting nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; defending civilian populations to minimize the intimidation; and contributing to the development of stable societies that do not foster terrorist extremism. Pro argues that America cannot win the war on terror. He offers three contentions: (1) "you cannot wage war on an idea or 'ideology.' (2) "Americas continued presence in the [Middle East] ... will continue to increase hatred and suspicion among the people of the region," and (3) "America's idea of installing democracy in a country for the past 2,000 has been led by a Islamic constitution with Islamic beliefs and traditions is wrong." 1. Ideology I gave numerous examples of ideologies being defeated, including Nazi fascism, Japanese militarism, Communism, and IRA terrorism. Pro countered that Communism and IRA terrorism were not defeated, because there were still believers who were causing trouble and hoped to rise again and a significant force. It's true that might happen, but right now they have been defeated -- they no longer constitute a threat that is significant compared to other more important threats to society. Pro ignored the examples of Nazi fascism and Japanese militarism. To argue the generality that no ideology can be defeated, there cannot be a single counterexample, which obviously there is. 2. Continuing Presence Islamic terrorists are deeply upset by the existence of people who do not believe as they do. The Taliban destroyed the important historical Buddhist artefact's in Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org... That was not due to a history of Buddhist occupation, because there was no such thing. It is a basic principle that all who do not support the terrorist ideals are infidels who must be destroyed. The death toll of people killed by Muslim terrorists is mainly Muslims. Contrary to Pro's assertion, there is considerable terrorist activity in Germany http://nsecnetworks.net... http://www.nytimes.com... and France http://www.dinocrat.com.... In Germany attacks have been foiled in recent years, exactly as they have been in the United States. In France, attacks have been carried out. I argued that killing fellow Muslims does not endear terrorists to the local population. That was a major factor in turning around the Iraq war. Pro ignored the argument, but it gives a strong reason why mere American presence does not make winning impossible. At this point, it's clear that winning in Iraq is possible. It hasn't happened yet, but it is clearly possible. Moreover, it's also clear that Americans do not want to stay in the Middle East. That's an important difference from, for example, previous era's of British, French, and Russian domination of various regions. 3. 2000 years of culture Actually, Islam did not become established in the Middle East until about a thousand years ago. The relevance is that it is less socially evolved than other world regions. Under pressure of modern communications, we can expect the Muslim world to now evolve much more quickly, and that will damage the underpinnings of fanatical Islam. It is becoming apparent that there is more to life than jihad. Society is determined more strongly by how the current generation or two has been socialized, than by the previous millenia. Iraq, for example, had been dominated by Saddam, who wrought dramatic changes on the society. Japanese militarism was renounced in a generation, and Nazi fascism similarly renounced. Therefore, there is no grounds for supposing that it cannot happen in the Middle East. I also argued that Islamic tradition should not be equated with fanatical jihadism. Defeating terrorism in no way implies a necessity to abolish Islamic society. Not one expects that to happen or believes it is part of the war on terror. The goal is solely to reduce terrorism to problem no worse than the other problems faced by societies. Democracy Pro ridicules the idea of installing democracy in a society that has been non-democratic for 2000 years. However, there were no democratic societies at all in the world until the late 17th century, so by Pro's argument there should be none now. In fact, there were very few democracies until the 20th century. After WWII, a democracy was installed in Japan in a decade, despite thousands of years of previous history. So it is clearly possible. However, installing democracies is not necessary to win the war on terror. Bringing about democracy is one strategy, but it suffices that the society be inhospitable to terrorists for whatever reason. Reasons include economic dependence on the West and the desire of local rulers to stay in control. China is not a democracy, but nonetheless inhospitable to terrorists. the Chinese are willing to play games with terrorists internationally, but they have not and will not tolerate any terrorism within China. ------------- Throughout the debate, Pro has ignored counterexamples and counter arguments. That's the way he handled the example of the defeat of Nazi fascism as a counterexample to his contention that an ideology can never be defeated. By ignoring examples and arguments, he hopes they will go away. However, when Pro is challenged with a question, he gets quite offended. I asked Pro whether a full scale WWII-style effort against terrorism, putting in 15 million troops with a total national commitment, would root out and destroy terrorism. For someone arguing that "America will never win the 'War on Terror'" that should be an easy question. I even hinted at possible answers: "That would win, but American will never do that." or "No, that won't win." But Pro never answered, instead hiding behind a flurry of indignation that he was asked. I think Pro realized where any answer would lead in the debate, and it wouldn't favor Pro's position. The resolution is negated.