Is the war against terrorism winnable?

2017-02-27T21:54:50-05:00

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2017 9:56 PM

2017-02-27T21:56:30-05:00

Depends on what winning looks like. In the meantime we don't really have a choice. They keep coming. We'll keep killing em.

Response by SSG Michael Scott made Feb 27 at 2017 9:57 PM

2017-02-27T21:57:09-05:00

Yes, if we did a repeat in WWII

Response by SFC George Smith made Feb 27 at 2017 9:58 PM

2017-02-27T21:58:25-05:00

Yes... But It Requires Commitment And The Eradication Of The Problem...
But Congress Will not allow it... They Have No testicular Fortitude and Very Little Spinal Fortitude...

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2017 10:17 PM

2017-02-27T22:17:33-05:00

SGT Private RallyPoint Member Yes, it is winnable.

Response by PFC Jonathan Albano made Feb 27 at 2017 10:19 PM

2017-02-27T22:19:37-05:00

Yes- but it's a war that requires weapons of peace and diplomacy just as bad as rifles and lead.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2017 10:26 PM

2017-02-27T22:26:03-05:00

Maybe against particular organizations, but you can't declare war on a tactic much less win it.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2017 10:56 PM

2017-02-27T22:56:29-05:00

The soldier in me says yes every war is winnable. But my mind says that this isn't a normal war. Our enemy doesn't wear a uniform nor will they fight us like a regular army. And it seems like for every bad guy we take out, two take his place. I think this war will go on for a very long time, if not forever.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Feb 27 at 2017 11:16 PM

2017-02-27T23:16:43-05:00

Yes, the war is winnable but we need to get agreement on what defines terrorism, just like we did when we decided to join the fight against the fascist Italian state, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
So given the situation we should assess a baseline of where we are: The coalition is in a much better position than in WWII when these Axis states controlled significant economic, political, diplomatic and military strength.
Define the end state is much more difficult: Destruction of the current ISIS/ISIL and Taliban is clear but as Islamist change to new leadership, create a new group and move to new ungoverned areas, they use violence to establish an Islamic State beyond the established Nation states recognized by the UN.
Therefore, we must broaden the definition to anyone who takes part in a conspiracy or takes violent action to further the development of the Islamic State(s).
Conspiracy means planning, development, design, preparatory activities necessary to conduct, participate and support violent action to ensure the develop and support of the Islamist group.
When the international norm becomes NO SUPPORT for either conspiracy or violent actions then our Coalition will be capable of making the population of Islamist.
Who needs to join the war, the nation states that are majority Muslim must be able to distinguish between a legitimate Muslim state and an illegitimate Islamic State. The population within the existing Nation States offers tangible support and conduct violence, when the Muslim norm becomes NO SUPPORT for an illegitimate Islamist State attacking any other state, including Jewish, then all Islamist terrorism will be defeated.

Will this be quick, No, is it possible, Yes.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 27 at 2017 11:18 PM

2017-02-27T23:18:44-05:00

Yes. If we decide to win it

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2017 1:07 AM

2017-02-28T01:07:23-05:00

Well, that depends. What does winning look like to you?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2017 8:59 AM

2017-02-28T08:59:56-05:00

no it isn't terrorism is a idea not a actual person. What happens when we defeat ISIS and the Taliban another group will emerge to take their place. When you overthrow a government a new one takes place. People won't agree with that government so they turn to terror methods. Now look we have to go back over their and fight another war it's a endless cycle. War on terrorism has done nothing but cause terrorism, just like the war on drugs created more drug problems.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Feb 28 at 2017 11:24 AM

2017-02-28T11:24:29-05:00

I added "Terrorism" as an extra tag for you.

I believe the question is very broad. Did you mean overall terrorism, or specifically terrorism related to ISIS? If this is more related to Islamic terrorism, then it is winnable, however it will take a long time. Many of the issues we faced is due to ideology that has existed for a very long time as well as education (or lack thereof) in the regions from which terrorism spawn from.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2017 11:25 AM

2017-02-28T11:25:11-05:00

About as winnable as the War on Drugs, therefore the answer would be no. There will always be terrorists, and as such there will always be terrorist attacks and as long as there are terrorist attacks then we'll always be at war. There is absolutely no way in the world to appease everyone, either politically or religiously, which are the two main reasons for terrorism.

Response by SFC William H. made Feb 28 at 2017 11:45 AM

2017-02-28T11:45:48-05:00

Depends upon your definition of terrorism. Groups who tried to impose their will upon countries, nations, or states have risen and fallen with the tides of time. They were not based on a religious ideology. A military example , the FARC, of Colombia, is a "revolutionary" group that Colombia tried to negotiate with and co-exist with. They are still there. My point is, you have to end the ideology. If the coalition can get it together in a united front, we will kill a lot of terrorists. Will we win? No.

Response by SGT David T. made Feb 28 at 2017 12:08 PM

2017-02-28T12:08:38-05:00

Terrorism does not fit the usual norms for military operations so it cannot be fought in those terms. They use fear and terror as a weapon. So the only way to win is to use fear and terror ourselves. In order to pull it off we would have to resort to such barbarism that the idea of hitting us would be so horrific that they wouldn't think to do it. However, this would open up a Pandora's box that could never be closed again. I don't think our leaders would go for it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2017 3:19 PM

2017-02-28T15:19:12-05:00

no , we can kill all terrorists we can but all it takes is one individual with a strong believe and persuasion to keep the ball rolling.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 28 at 2017 7:49 PM

2017-02-28T19:49:23-05:00

Yes, Of course. SGT Private RallyPoint Member Assuming we really want to win... We have not committed to total war since WWII... That is what it will take.

https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/TOC.htm

Carl von Clausewitz: ON WAR. Table of Contents.

A complete on-line version of Carl von Clausewitz's famous 1832 philosophical work, ON WAR (in German, VOM KRIEGE), in the 1873 English translation.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2017 3:22 PM

2017-03-09T15:22:25-05:00

SGT Private RallyPoint Member Do you mind if I ask this question another way, by using similar a question?

Will we win the war on Crime? Crime has been illegal since it was first defined. We've been paying police forces for centuries (at least) but we haven't eradicated crime. Maybe we should just surrender and admit we can't stop crime?

As the world gets more and more populated, there will be more and more people to share the ever more limited resources, including food. I don't foresee that there will be a time that someone doesn't want to kill someone else and take what they have.

Does that mean we can't win? Perhaps. But I'd rather fight than give up.

I believe we can kill some, harass more, disperse them, remove or limit their communication, logistics, and financial support, and reduce their ability to plan and execute large operations. I regard that as winning. Perhaps others will see things differently than I do.