Today is the sixty-fifth anniversary of the German invasion of Poland, which set off the greatest conflict of the twentieth century. The beginning and (especially) end of this war won't seem quite so clear cut to history. I agree with John Hillen that:

The president should define the goals in the war on terrorism ad nauseum - it will lend strategic and moral clarity to the debate - in much the way that FDR's Cassablanca conference declaration of unconditional surrender put a cap on what was then a murky WWII alliance strategy. In the meantime, Republican policy makers should grab a copy of Reagan defense official Fred Ikle's "Every War Must End" and start figuring out how this applies to the war on terror and the way in which this should be put to the public.

It will be extremely difficult to quantify an end to the war on terror. Where do you start? Regional, world wide, exclude the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Do you set a threshhold of the number of attacks? My guess is if there are functioning democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq by the end of 2006 and some sign of peace developing in Gaza and the West Bank along with less violence from Chechens, the terror war will have made great progress. Of course that leaves N. Korea, Iran and sub Sahara Africa. Will we consider problems there terrorism or nation-states in need of persuasion? I think, as with many leaders, the administration has confused some tactical questions with strategic ones. All good questions with 6 billion different answers.

NK is the odd man out in the WOT. This is really a war with a particular strain (actually family of strains) of militant Islam. NK is only important as a potential source of WMD.

I'm willing to call it a win when the general response among the muslim population of the world to an act of terrorism is repudiation rather than justification or praise (or excuses). I think that will be a long time coming. Alternatively a win might be just when the terror networks are driven into an equilibrium where they lose tens of people in counterterrorist actions for every innocent person they kill - that makes it unsustainable, and eventually they'll shift tactics.

I'm willing to call it a win when the general response among the muslim population of the world to an act of terrorism is repudiation rather than justification or praise (or excuses).

How do you propose to do that?

I think that will be a long time coming.

Agreed.

Alternatively a win might be just when the terror networks are driven into an equilibrium where they lose tens of people in counterterrorist actions for every innocent person they kill - that makes it unsustainable, and eventually they'll shift tactics.

Hmmm. . .

Didn't the Nazis try the same kill 10 for 1 ratio? Besides, how do you tell the moderate Muslims from the radicals? Kill the moderates in retaliation for radical terrorism and you undermine the first goal outlined above.

= = =

First, we need to protect moderate Iraqis. Like the mayor of Najaf who spoke out against Sadr, had his brother (in law?) and father kidnapped by Sadr's people and now we invite Sadr into Iraqi politics.

But to do that we need more soldiers.

The '10-for-1' business is one of the few ways that has historical success against guerillas on its side. Historical atrocities of this sort abound. Ghengis Khan and Rome both come to mind immediately. The US wouldn't manage it. Russia might.

The 'drain the swamp' method seems far more likely to work in Iraq, even if Najaf and Falluja remain cesspools ad infinitum. (Precisely because the _support_ is external).

Today (9/1) is the anniversary of the beginning of WWII (in Europe, the Chinese might quibble a bit...), but tomorrow (9/2) is the anniversary of the END of the war. Perhaps this might make for a nice theme for GWB's speech?

Didn't you see Moore's "Fahrenheit 1941" where he proves that the Poles really did attack that German radio station so that the US and Britain could bomb a peaceful Germany full of picnicing kids flying kites?

The '10-for-1' business is one of the few ways that has historical success against guerillas on its side. Historical atrocities of this sort abound. Ghengis Khan and Rome both come to mind immediately. The US wouldn't manage it. Russia might.

The 'drain the swamp' method seems far more likely to work in Iraq, even if Najaf and Falluja remain cesspools ad infinitum. (Precisely because the _support_ is external).

What if the swamp extends into Saudi Arabia?

Draining the swamp in Iraq will do little good if college educated, economically well-off Saudis are willing to fly airliners into buildings.

Sorry Al for missing the second & - - preview is my friend.

But tonight, the idea that GWB is tough on terror is a joke, right?

Look at Fallajuh and Najaf. In both instances the US military caved in to the rebels.

Remind me please what was the exit strategy in WW3 (the Cold War) ? What was the exit strategy in Vietnam ?

Wars and their aftermath are difficult (i.e. impossible) to plan. You get into the war when you have to, you do the best you can, you plan ahead as much as possible (next campaign), and then it somehow ends (or not).
The WOT will end when there will be no more terror.
When will that be? How do we get there? Those who say they have answers to these questions are'nt to be taken seriously.

Another question is: is the alternative (not fighting the WOT, like the Europeans) a better way?

Bill, you wrote:

Draining the swamp in Iraq will do little good if college educated, economically well-off Saudis are willing to fly airliners into buildings.

IMHO, that isn't a problem. The terrorists of 9/11 weren't economically well-off even though many of them were college educated. Sure, you occasionally run into a Patty Heast type who sympathizes with the terrorists, but those aren't the people doing the dying.

I think people with homes, close families, and hope don't kill masses of people. But your mileage may vary.

I think people with homes, close families, and hope don't kill masses of people.

What a monumentally ignorant statement. Why did the Wehrmacht invade Poland? Why did Athens and Sparta fight? Why did Alexander defeat the Great King? What was the Cold War about? Why did Caesar subjugate Gaul? Why did the Hutus slaughter a million Tutsis in '94? What was that Final Solution stuff about and who ran the camps? Why the Great Leap Forward? The Gulag? The Killing Fields? The Rape of Nanking? Hiroshima?

Frankly, I can't think of any historical example of pyramids of skulls being piled up by desperately impoverished and hopeless people. Except maybe the Russian Revolution, in part.

People fight because they're greedy, angry, or scared. Folks who are greedy are not hopeless. And angry and scared folks are usually those with plenty to lose, i.e. hardly desperately impoverished.

This silly shibboleth has been for too long a prop of the root-causes crowd, who prefer theory to measurement every time.

Terrorism exists precisely because the terrorists are not impoverished and hopeless. Because they have time and money to plan and execute these acts, and because they have hope, from the way the world reacted to the last act of terrorism, that their acts may change things in their favor.

Radical Islamic terrorism exists (in part) because Western secular society threatens the established relationships between men and women in Arab cultures. But that is re-cast as destroying "traditional" Islamic culture.

As Bill Maher once said, if asked whether they would prefer being ruled by Saddam OR watching their sisters, daughters and wives walk around in mini-skirts (and all that is implied by that) then a surprising number may well choose Saddam.

PS - - Recently, the United States and radical Islam had a face-to-face showdown in Najaf.

We backed down.

Well, if Bill Maher said it, it must be true...

Well, if Bill Maher said it, it must be true...

Well, its a better reason than they hate us for no reason at all. . . ;-0

It's not an economic thing. It's cultural and religious. And the Bush line, they hate us because they hate us, end of discussion just isn't very useful.

Especially when we cave at Najaf and Fallajuh and then boast about being, well, strong.

> Terrorism exists precisely because the terrorists are not impoverished and hopeless.

Hmmm.