Why we can't win the war on terrorism

We don't mean to sound unpatriotic, because we wholeheartedly condemn the heinous and tragic events of September 11. However, we don't believe that the US and its coalition can win in the long-run, and we're about to tell you why.

Prior to Sept. 11, the economies of the entire world were near recession or in recession. Since Sept. 11, world economies have entered recessions and are quickly heading for a depression.
- And unlike WWII, which helped raise the world out of the Great Depression, this war on terrorism is highly unlikely to have the same effect because the average consumer is not being put to work for the "war effort."
- During WWII, consumers were put to work building infrastructure and weapons, and providing support services to the military. But in this age of "smart weapons," what can the average consumer do to assist? Answer: nothing! so the economy gets no economic stimulus!
Company earnings are down with no end to this in sight, personal and business bankruptcies are up, layoffs are increasing, consumer spending is down due to fear and uncertainty, consumer confidence is down, and now, major companies are filing for bankruptcy protection or heading in that direction.
Lots of companies around the globe, and cities too for that matter, who depend upon tourism and travel are suffering greatly due to this war. And unfortunately, with no end in sight and the prospect of a long and drawn-out conflict, many businesses are facing or will face serious and devastating financial troubles. And many cities, who make money with tourists are suffering and will only suffer more as time goes by because people around the globe are scared to travel.
And what have our efforts accomplished so far? Bombing a country into oblivion which has practically no military to begin with, whose people are starving, live in great poverty, lack education, and whom have faced such horrific hardship for ten years!
- Bottom-line: the only ones who are truly suffering in all of this are the Afghan people, and bombings aren't helping them at all! The food drops are ineffective because how can people retrieve them while they're hiding and fearful from on-going bombings.
- And we made a crucial error: dropped food to aid suffering Afghans while dropping bombs. We should have just dropped the food first, make sure it got distributed to those in need, and then begin bombing. By dropping food during our bombing campaign, it guarantees the food won't reach its intended target--and that's a shame!
We don't really understand what we're up against. We're fighting Bin Laden and terrorism like it's a country or political organization. Fact is, that's wrong!
- What we need to grow-up and realize is that he's fighting a religious crusade. He's waging a 16th century Inquisition or Crusade, but using 21st century tactics. He lives like a pauper, even though he's immensely wealthy. He doesn't care about material possessions nor political objectives, but is rather waging a war whereby he intends to make the entire world Islamic--and his brand of Islam! He, in our opinion, considers himself as the Religious Leader of the world, and is fighting to achieve that goal.
- Bin Laden has mastered the art of fear, and he's winning on that level. Anthrax scares are popping-up all over, and they seem perfectly clear in their intent: scare us into capitulation by warning us of what we're up against if things continue. Targets are also logical: the media so that the public hears about it immediately, major corporations which represent capitalism at its best, and political leaders who represent those in charge and can alter policies.
- Why isn't the Taliban handing over Bin Laden, despite the clear fact that they are totally outmatched? Why should they? The Taliban, as bad as they are and have been, have never attacked anybody, nor threatened to. They've enslaved and impoverished their own people, but they've never really bothered anybody else. Quite frankly, they don't have much use for the outside world.
- And what happens after the Taliban is removed? Bin Laden took-out the most likely successor leaving an old and aging former Afghan King as next in line. However, that's only temporary and do we really want to decide who will lead next? Prior to the Taliban and following the defeat of the Soviets, Afghan tribal warlords were fighting each other and it was, quite frankly, worse than the Taliban. The Taliban has brought relative peace to the region.
- Winters in Afghanistan are brutal! and the country is riddled with millions of land mines, who only the Taliban know where. Do we really want to send in ground forces into this kind of terrain? It's not like Vietnam! Bin Laden will cross every line and use methods we've never considered or view as inhuman to accomplish his goals.
Right now, Bin Laden is using anthrax to scare the public and it's working! We're scared! And what if he decides to use something far more deadly the next time? Are we really willing to take that chance? Our opinion is NO.
Bush has never had any foreign policy from day 1! And he's walking a tightrope within the Arab world, making "deals with the devils" like Saudi Arabia and Syria to gain their cooperation. How can we justify going after terrorists in those nations when they're suppose to be our friends and we need their bases and support? We have a message to Mr. Bush: you can't have it both ways!
And what about Israel? Unlike the Gulf War, where the Arab world was on our side, not because they agreed with or liked us, but more so out of fear that their own country would be next to fall, Israel won't stay out of this if attacked. And why should they? If a country is attacked, they have a right to respond. It's like the Israelis telling the US not to respond to Sept. 11 because it will increase the likelihood of their being attacked. Besides, who knows better than Israel how to battle terrorism; a country that's been fighting it for 50 years! That's who we really should be "kissing-up" to! Not countries like Saudi Arabia.
- And not only does Israel know better than anybody how to conduct a war on terrorism, they're also adept at using terrorist-like methods to win. And they don't think twice about adopting such methods because they realize that to fight terrorists, you have to think and act like them. But is Bush focusing on using Israel for guidance? NO, instead he's catering to the Arab world at Israel's expense.
We're never going to wipe-out terrorism. We probably will make some major dents, but never eliminate it completely. It's like the drug war, can make dents but there will be someone else waiting in the wings to take over. But unlike the drug war, terrorist operatives are all over the world, including in several coalition member countries.

Our opinion:

A long and drawn-out conflict will be economically devastating to global economies, including our own! And it's not worth the effort because you'll never eliminate the threat of terrorism. We have to be content with living with it, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate it. Beef-up our own national security, and urge all coalition members to do the same. Share intelligence to prevent or minimize the next attack.

Going after terrorists on their "home turf" is a giant mistake because of their global nature and the fear of chemical and biological weapons being used against us. We can't risk it! Saddam Hussein isn't stupid, has political goals, and doesn't want to die because he craves and loves power. But the Bin Ladens of the world believe it's an honor to die for the cause (become martyrs), and using religion as the cause is extremely powerful and motivating. The Bin Ladens of the world will kill anyway they can, and we just can't risk the threat of deadly biological or chemical weapons being used against us.

But this notion of stamping-out terrorism once and for all--it's clearly not an achievable goal! We should get out now! Terrorists now know that the world won't sit ideally by while they kill our citizens, and that we'll be on our guard from now on. But an all-out war is just not winnable.

Return to main page