We have done badly in the war on poverty; there are pop songs that say we can't win the war on drugs; we even tried to whip inflation by wearing buttons.

Is there a plausible way to win a war on terrorism?

Can we win it by the application of asymetrical military force or is it a socio-cultural offensive that is best suited?

I'm not completely sure, but I think that we would definitely need better propaganda than we have now.

Just because our superior propaganda eventually beat out the Russian's propaganda, doesn't mean it will whip terrorism...after all, how many years did it take for Russia's communism to fall apart.

__________________
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. Robert A. Heinlein


09 Jetta TDI
1985 300D

Goofy name, "War on Terrorism." I understand why that phrase was chosen--to make the actual war more palatable.

The war is against messianic mediaevalists who control the planetary energy supply and who wish to bring their vision of Heaven-on-Earth to all of the dark lands of Satan. The dark lands of Satan would be "us."

In the long term the best way to defeat them is by encouraging them to embrace a new vision of humanity's relationship with God. One that respects individual liberty and education and rights of women, etc.

In the short term we kill any that are dangerous whenever we can.

Bot

Doesn't killing them create them faster? Obviously not in a biological parental sense, but thru the recruitment of partisans?

That's why it is two-track. The long-term is education and liberty. That takes time. Meanwhile you kill the dangerous ones.

If you don't kill the dangerous ones they kill you.

So, in essence, you agree with me?

__________________
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. Robert A. Heinlein


09 Jetta TDI
1985 300D

I blush at the word propaganda, and so as a good propagandist, would prefer, "education."

But don't discount the value of killing the dangerous ones.

B

PS Yes.

I like that:

The War on Messianic Medievalists!

Sounds a lot better than the war on terror, which is just PR for us anyway. IMO, the answer to MTI's last sentence is yes.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Honestly, how do we win this "war" so that our grandchildren won't be fighting it.

The first step might be to recognize that we are in fact in war and fighting for our survival.

__________________
I'm sick of .sig files

Well MTI, we have given you our assessments, which are in fairly close accord and you don't seem especially enamoured of them. Show us your stuff. What have you got hidden in your pocket that makes you blush?

Here's another perspective.

Bot

--------

They, The People

by John Derbyshire (Aug. 2006)


You cannot be objective about an aerial torpedo. And the horror we feel of these things has led to this conclusion: if someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother. The only apparent alternatives are to smash dwelling houses to powder, blow out human entrails and burn holes in children with thermite, or to be enslaved by people who are more ready to do these things than you are yourself; as yet no one has suggested a practicable way out.
—George Orwell, reviewing Arthur Koestler’s Spanish Testament
for the magazine Time and Tide, Feb. 5, 1938.
I’ve been thinking about North Korea. Not the leaders—not that chubby freak with the Little Richard coiffure, nor his stone-faced generals, but the actual people of North Korea. They are, of course, in a sorry state. I have read The Aquariums of Pyongyang and you should, too; and things have gotten far worse since the experiences that author describes. You can’t help but feel sorry for the poor devils. And yet... Well, perhaps it is unjust, perhaps it is blaming the victim, but peeking out from behind my sympathy is the subversive little thought: What kind of people are these?

It is not as though North Korea is under foreign occupation. Nobody is oppressing the North Koreans but... other North Koreans. China and—to their everlasting shame, it seems to me—the South Koreans are enablers of the Kim Jong-il regime; but nobody would mobilize to rescue Kim if his people rose against him.

This has been certainly true since the end of the Cold War; arguably, it has been true since the Sino-Soviet split around 1960, in which Kim Il-sung declined to take sides. For nearly half a century, on the latter argument, the North Koreans have been putting up with those appalling levels of oppression at the hands of other North Koreans, with no third party being much involved.

Why? Montesquieu—and, I think, all the other 18th-century gents who thought about these issues—believed that “if the insult be great enough, the people will rise.” That, of course, was a lot easier to say in the age of swords and muskets and horse-borne news, than it is in the modern age, when civil discontent can be nipped in the bud very easily and quickly by a regime that is unscrupulous in methods of observing and intimidating its people. Still, you can’t help asking yourself whether we Americans would put up with a regime like the Kims’ for forty years. Are the people of North Korea entirely victims? Thirty years ago, Igor Shafarevich , speaking from the depths of Brezhnev’s Russia, told us that as tyranny descends on the people, there is something in the human soul that rises to greet it. Is that true everywhere? Would it be true of us?

What, come to think of it, are we to make of the South Koreans? For decades they have watched their kin—for some, literally their kin—in the North being starved, tortured, and brutalized by the Kim despotisms. Yet the Southrons are a capable people, productive and resourceful, with a large and well-equipped military—easily a match for the North, with its underfed peasant soldiers and its antiquated, rusting tanks. Would we Americans go about our business so smugly if, say, the old Confederacy were taken over by a Kim-ist tyranny, whose leaders fattened and indulged themselves while their people starved in rags? Would we make no effort to liberate our fellow Americans? Even at the cost of some sacrifice to ourselves?

We are told that the first act by North Korea, if attacked, would be to start firing artillery shells into Seoul. Now, I am sure it must be a very distracting thing to have an artillery shell come in through your office window. Cities have endured worse, though. Over 1,300 V-2 ballistic missiles hit London during the closing months of WWII, yet Londoners regarded this as a passing incident in the larger war, and have largely forgotten about it. A V-2 delivered a far bigger explosive punch than a mere artillery shell. How long would it take South Korea to neutralize those Northern artillery batteries? Yet apparently South Koreans have no interest in liberating their fellow-countrymen. They prefer to enjoy the good life, driving their new cars, chattering into their cell phones, settling back before their 72-inch plasma TV screens. Perhaps it is impertinent of me to judge them. I am only recording passing thoughts.

More at http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3657&sec_id=3657

Once we find a way to make money doing it, it'll never be won. Well, at least it will create jobs. Maybe.

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

I'll tell you how we "win" if that's what you want to call it. Line the "dangerous" ones up and Mistress Heather will whip them silly.

My expertise lies elsewhere, but heres my two dracmas worth. To settle any conflict two parties need to sit down and negotiate for what it is they want. I don't believe that's possible with the renegade tribes we are currently waring against, because they don't want the Americans in the Middle East period, we'll just have to find oil elsewhere, but first we need to fix that nasty little leak in Alaska. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go clean off my whips...

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

The political value of an eternal war is immeasurable. It becomes a justification for numerous policies which would be unacceptable to the populace during times of peace but find a foothold in the climate of fear induced by war.
A war on terror is the wet dream of the military industrial complex.

A war on messianic medievalism wouldn't work because the guns would get turned on Christian fundamentalists.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Is this what you believe is possible or is this what you believe is happening?