What was/is the war on terror?

Yeah, I know this subject has been done to death, but I'm writing an essay on it for politics. And this is the main problem I'm having with it at the moment.

Now, I know in an emotional address, you're not going to lay out your case like an academic essay, but I'm rereading Bush's War on Terror Speech, and I'm finding it very difficult to come up with anything of substance.

The best I can manage is the following from the secondpage (5 pages):

loosely affiliated terrorist organisation known as al Qaeda [...] it's goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere

The United States makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver ... all the leaders of al Qaeda [...] Release all foreign nationals .. you have unjustly iimprisioned. Protect foreign ... workers in your countries. Close immediately and permantly every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and hand over every terrorist. Give ... full access to terrorist training camsp, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

page 3:
Either you are with us, are you are with the terrorists.

page 4:
Terror, unanswered can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitamate governments.
----

And during the rest, he essentially refers to it as a cultural war.

BUT, a war on terror is not the same as a cultural war, so therefore, this makes no sense to me.

Could those of you that supported the war on terror tell me exactly what it was that you were supporting, and ideally direct me to speechs etc that back this up? (I already know the arguments against the concept of a war on terror)

I can't write about it unless I know what I'm writing about, obviously, and I would rather not write about implications and assumptions that the speech created if I don't have to, as that's supposed to be the opposing argument. This defininition is only supposed to be for the intro of the essay anyway.

Thanks

It's partly a war to destroy terorists, and partly a grab for oil at the same time. Bush neglected to mention the latter in his speech.

Hard to find substance in a Bush speech? Say it isn't so!!

Well, what I envisioned from the phrase when it was first thrown out there, was that we'd have Special Ops units (in cooperation with local governments) seeking out clandestine terrorist cells all over the world, then calling in either local armed forces or our own to obliterate the cells.

I had some vague idea that we'd be finding some polital or philosophical way to put an end to organized terrorism, but at the same time I knew that was a wild dream.

Never once did I imagine it would mean many, many years with most of our troops bogged down in Iraq in a neo-Nam-like morass with no end in sight, with no apparent attempts to follow the original mandate of seeking out terrorists in the rest of the world.

The War on Terrorism as I see it:

1. Combat operations against Al Quaeda, the Taliban, and any other extremist group that aids, abets, plans, funds, trains, or conducts terrorist attacks against sovereign western nations.

2. Intelligence operations to aid in the prosecution of (1)

3. Operations to locate the funds and assets of persons and organizations meeting the criteria listed in (1) and freezing or neutralizing them.

4. Taking diplomatic and/or economic sanctions against soveriegn nations who are state sponsors ot terrorism, to include military action if said nations to not take active measures to end the sponsorship of terrorism within their borders and by their government.

Notice there are no specific countries or religions named here. Terrorism is terrorism regardless of who conducts it. However, it just so happens that most of the terrorism we're dealing with these days is being sponsored, planned, and carried out by middle eastern muslim extremists. But it was not always thus.

Hope that helps, Mini.

But... that's your idea of it and not those in power's idea of it?

I think George has a different take on it.

note to self

(sorry, printer network not working and this is quicker than emailing it to myself!)

Do you have anything to back those ideas up, where you've been led to that thinking by those in power?

Cheers

Uhmm, no. That's my personal take on how we should define the war on terror. The administration clearly has a different slant on it. But what I listed above was how I interpreted it all right after 9-11, before we invaded Afghanistan.

That is correct, Eccentric.

A catchphrase to get the immediately frightened masses to drink deep of the dark elixir of nationalism.

Exactly. A sound bite.

Just like global warming

Please see President Han Solo's speech in the beginning of the movie Air Force One, when everybody in the U.S. was asking why the hell were we not going after terrorists.

The War of Terrar? Hm.

It's an international struggle between bin Laden and a bunch of teenage (and adult) rejects who've got nothing better to do and want to be a hero against the United States and their influence in the region.

One wants a perfect (fantasy) Islamic fundamental region of states and the other was playing realpolitik against the Soviets and Iran.

Then in 2000 we had the election of Bush the Younger, who's own disturbingly creepy advisers were pushing for the neoconservative dream of knocking down Iraq and "frightening" everyone else in the world to heel under our boot.

Seriously, I'm not making any of this up (abridging it a bit, but eh).

Initially, I supported the WoT because I wanted to see Osama Bin Laden brought to justice, which was what initially got us into this war. It's become much more wide spread since then, but I have become highly disatisfied with the progress and the way things are happening. President Bush suddenly changed in midstream to attack Iraq. I supported that because I feel that Saddam is a madman who's killed roughly two million citizens and refused to recognise human rights.

But I support the basic reasons that essentially it is the right thing to do, and the moral thing to do, to go after those who would harm innocents.

I have become highly disasstified because other than Saddam, there has been no real progress on taking the terrroists out. We don't have Bin Laden, nor have there been any news on any other terrorist groups.

Our boys are being restrained because of partisan politics, and this is an issue that should not be affected by partisan politics.

He never gave a shit about Bin Laden.

They don't give a shit about 9/11, they don't give a shit about me and you, they've got their precious little plan, and it's not just Bush, it goes back 30, maybe 50 years, and it keeps chugging along.

They don't give a fuck. At all. At all. AT ALL.

Wake up to that.

Absolutely. Read up on this shit, the Clinton administration's advice and data were completely ignored and several high level intelligence directors/advisers have stated that on the day after 9/11 they were being asked how this ties into Iraq.

It's fucking scary.

It's much more than that. It's a sound bite with explosions! You can't distract people from realizing it's a sound bite unless you have the explosions too; the explosions are key.

Dirty bombs decimating capital cities...rising oceans decimating coastal cities...choose you drama, IMHO!

No.

All I know is my "war on weather" is falling short of my original goals.

This war is a generational thing - it won't be "won" for decades. Most of the terrorist recruits come from poverty and are shaped their whole, short lives by propaganda that heaps all blame for all ills on the West. They'll probably never become rich if they can't replicate some basic policy changes like say, South Korea. And they'll always have plenty of fodder for propaganda even if the West doesn't use heavy-handed tactics. And, as we've seen, America, the UK and a few others do, plus there are Western bases on "holy" land, the West insists on a continued flow of oil from the ME region, and since they're so "devout" the simple matter of man-made law that doesn't bend to Allah's will is affront that merits death. Since removal of all Western bootprints in the ME is not practical to achieve within a decade or two (at best), and since the West is not likely to embrace Allah to supercede our Constitutions or National Charters, the problem is not going to go away soon, or quickly. And, many would argue that even capitulating on every point would not quiet the hate of the Islamofascists.

If appeasement had a chance of success, then France would have tried it already. UN resolutions and similar processes are vulnerable to stall tactics and doubletalk (as we've seen with Iran, or the Crazy Midget), and anyway are a sucker's choice since their ultimate, explicit aim is to destroy us or at least deny others a right to exist.

Attrition, if that's the strategy, will take a very long time but, in the opinion of those who support fighting a WOT, may beat waiting for Muslim fanatics to try and top the 9/11 attacks (or the Bali bombings, or July 7's London tube bombings, or Madrid's train bombings, ad naseum). And the 'war on terror' is the catch phase (as everyone already mentioned) designed for sound-bite consumption to describe it all.

Over the next few decades the WOT will peak and ebb probably in delayed sync with popular opinion. Public support will drop low enough from time to time, either after enough blunders or mismanagement, or perhaps through prolonged periods of bloodletting, but then there will be another catastrophe in the West, or maybe information gained from intelligence gathering (good luck waiting for that one), and support for a fight will increase again and a battle will be fought in a different arena, or using different tactics, probably with brighter packaging.

Famous words pretty much always used to justify a complete lack of a plan or even foresight.

"Terror," of course, will never be defeated. Specific enemies who use terror will come and go, but specific enemies call for non-generational timeframes once military action is invoked. Diplomacy and economic engagement, of course, can be planned for the generations, but active military engagement or police actions "planned" for the generations are by definition failures from the get-go.

The comparison to climate change shows itself again.

It, too, will never be defeated, and measures to combat it are failures from the get-go.

Except you can opt out of shoveling any money at those damned evil hippies.

The oil cabal is sucking your money out of your pocket no matter what you do.

I guess railing more against the one you have control over gives you an illusion of control over everything else.

Whatever gets you through the night.

Me, I'll scapegoat the Irish.
Angela's Ashes is overrated, dammit.
Someone has to pay.

What, you think France already tried appeasement?