War On Terror. Success or Failure?

People forget that even an overwhelmingly successful war on terrorism is not going to stop ALL terrorism.

But if you go for 7 or 8 years before someone kills a few dozen people with a car bomb somewhere then you can probably call it a victory.

 

Terrorist networks like AQ are as powerful and influential as ever. They have expanded their influence all over Eurasia, seemingly with the help of the US government.

That is why Syria is months away from falling to ISIS and AQ extremists, because the US government and its client states - Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. - have been sending money and arms to the anti-Assad militants.

It's apparent to almost everyone in the world, except westerners, that the "Global War on Terror" is a farce. When Syria falls to the AQ/ISIS axis, most westerners will be ignorant of the causes, and the neo-cons will use it as another pretext for increased military intervention in the region, despite the fact that it was neo-cons who are directly responsible for the AQ/ISIS victories in Syria.

 

Neither of these "wars" were actually intended to be a success. They serve as a perpetual pretext for increased power and enrichment, so success is the last thing the powers-that-be want.

 

The War on Terror is just about as successful as The War on Poverty and/or The War on Drug. All are farces!

 

And like the war on poverty.

 

Every war on smth. claimed in America appears to be a failure. War on terrorism is the most obvious one. terrorists leaders are changing and new extremist organizations are being created in the path of time. But we didn't win the victory. We have spent so many sources for waging this for. But it was fruitless.

 

Horsepucky. The so-called "war on terror" was a gigantic ruse in the first place. There was no success, even the generals on the ground predicted what would happen the minute the troops left. No part of this idiotic "war" has been a success. The best thing that's happened in all of this is the country got rid of that idiot Bush and his fool Neo-Cons. The worst thing that happened is, the idiot they replaced him with (and his team). Neither one of those fools had the 'nads to grab the problem by the reins, they all went meekly along with the merchants of death (at public expense). The level of cowardice is very high on both sides of the aisle. Not to mention the hypocrisy meter, which is pinning in the red.

 

Well, we sure know how that Democracy turned out! You can not force a country,especially one in the Middle East with all the Religious factions to become a Democracy.

 

But, but we are winning the war on drugs. Ha,Ha,Ha

 

You win a war, whose enemy is ideologically driven, by taking the war to the enemy (including those that authorized the attacks) and killing them, leaving them no ideological safe haven for attitude and analysis, you lose a war by retreat and containment policy; it was a loss because of the Obamanation’s retreat and containment policy.

Authorization for the attacks of 9/11:

July 1997, South Movement, "the path of Jihad and proper action": "Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq's national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

“As we said before to those who launched aggressions on us, including the US, in and before Um-Almarik (the mother of the battles), the world, like Iraq and its Arab nation, needs steadfastness to face the aggression, make it miss its targets. It must not allow the US to be victorious. The victory of the US and its allies over Iraq would conceal the opposing attitude and analysis, and would not allow it to emerge again for a long time.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

 

Strangest war in history considering he's given Israel increasingly larger amounts of money every year. Maybe he's trying to kill them with kindness?

 

What evidence do you have that the Iraqi government was willing to drop its demand to be able to try US troops left in Iraq in Iraqi courts?

- - - Updated - - -

What is your evidence for this claim?

 

Its a total failure.

obama and pals are backing terrorists

 

He won't need to. He just gave Iran the green light to wipe them out. Generous fellow, dontcha think?

 

That's the power of an information war. 'War on terror' success or failure depends on how the mind of the individual processes the information it receives. Some would tell you it was a failure, while others will tell you it was a success.
Information wars are successful until people start to ignore em. Which will be the only way to reduce terror and make the 'war on terror' a success (because only a society can stop terror and wars if they knew how)

 

As I showed in another thread, it might have has something to do with the fact that there were 400% more troops in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush.

 

Maybe so. No one denies that part, it's basic math.

HOWEVER, do you think that by Obama changing the rules of engagement and creating the 'wait to get shot' rule, was a GOOD idea?

Did you serve in Afghanistan? Did you serve under these HORRIFIC rules of engagement our Commander in Chief created for us? Clearly no. Only a select 1% of our nation have.

It's clear you'll stick up for Obama no matter what. I'm just asking you why you support this change in the rules of engagement. If you try and justify it, we both know what that means.

 

Bush couldn't get the Iraqis to drop their demand to be able to try US troops. Did he "fail to properly negotiate or even really try"?

 

Bush Bush Bush.

Wahhh!

What about Obama. Name one thing Obama has not done right, militarily. Or are you claiming his military leadership has been outstanding, and he has done nothing wrong?

Or will you answer my simple question about his dangerous Rules of Engagement change from post #92?

 

How exactly? Did he destroy Israel's nuclear deterrent or shut down their missile defense system?

 

You have to prove the rules of engagement account for a disproportionately large number of casualties compared to the massive increase in the number of troops and the increase in combat activity. Prior to Obama, the troops in Afghanistan spent most of their time on their bases and most of those were in the safer areas of the country. Obama ended that policy and put troops out in Taliban strongholds to take the fight to them.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are going to claim Obama failed to negotiate properly, then you must concede Bush failed to negotiate properly too.

Or you could do the realistic thing and just note that the Iraqis weren't willing to drop their demand to be able to try US troops regardless of the President.

 

I asked you a simple question. Your attempt to stick up for Obama and wipe his behind at every turn, speaks volumes. If you can't man up and have a real conversation, you shouldn't be here.

I was there, I was with my battle buddies saying "crap, we have to wait until this guy engages before we can act". I saw the devastation of that first hand. No American Soldier appreciates having to wait to get shot, until they can engage.

Blind sheep are the downfall of America.

 

There's a reason for that change. In Iraq, the military killed a (*)(*)(*)(*)ton of allied or at least neutral Iraqi civilians and militia just because they happened to have a weapon in their hands. Wouldn't you have a weapon in your hands ready to defend your home if an occupying army and insurgents were fighting it our down the street?

 

Where in Iraq did you serve?

 

Baghdad, Al Kut, Diwaniyah.