Hasn't the US already lost the war on terrorism?

[politicaholic]

From what I understand Osama bin Laden had three main objectives:

1) US troops out of Saudi Arabia. Done.

2) Cripple the US economy. Done.

3) Spread his brand of fundamentalism & increase his network. Done.

Am I missing something or has the US lost and the WH just isn't admitting it?

[insane_cratic_gal]

1. We lost the moment

we invaded Iraq.

[Bleacher Creature]

2. If you count what happened on 11/2/04 -- yes.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Any "war on terrorism" is unwinnable by definition.

It's a war that never ends...like the "war on drugs". Makes a nice justification for increased military spending and armed intervention in foreign countries, though.

[politicaholic]

7. You're right, the Bal. Budget Amend. is out the window in times of war...

What a wonderful way to hide your math skills...or lack there of.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Jews out of Palestine

This was a big demand of UBL, however it is rarely if ever mentioned anymore, because really, "they hate us for our freedoms"

[Vincardog]

5. It is all going according to the plan.

aWoL and his criminal cabal wants us to be is a perpetual state of war. They think they have that with Bush's war on emotion.

[Kraklen]

6. The term "war on terrorism" is nonsensical.

But if you mean the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, then yes.

[Postman]

10. "terrorism" = method of warfare.....

like saying "war on air assaults"

[Kraklen]

12. anal sex for celibacy

Same bullshit.

[lectrobyte]

8. Not sure how a war on a tactic could ever succeed

and a good analysis of "why and what" here

http://dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/01247/557

excerpting a bit:

In radicalizing your apathetic sympathizers, you have no better ally than the violent extremists on the other side . Only they can convince your people that compromise is impossible. Only they can raise your countrymen's level of fear and despair to the point that large numbers are willing to take up arms and follow your lead. A few blown up apartment buildings and dead schoolchildren will get you more recruits than the best revolutionary tracts ever written.

Perversely, this means that you are the best ally of the extremists on the other side. That doesn't mean you love or even talk to each other -- they are, after all, vile and despicable demons. But at this stage in the process your interests align. Both of you want to invert the bell curve, to flatten out that big hump in the middle and drive people to the edges. That's why extremists come in pairs: Caesar and Pompey, the Nazis and the Communists, Sharon and Arafat, Bush and Bin Laden. Each side needs a demonic opposite in order to galvanize its supporters.

Naive observers frequently decry the apparent counter-productivity of extremist attacks. Don't the leaders of Hamas understand that every suicide bombing makes the Israelis that much more determined not to give the Palestinians a state? Don't they realize that the Israeli government will strike back even harder, and inflict even more suffering on the Palestinian people? Of course they do; they're not idiots. The Israeli response is exactly what they're counting on. More airstrikes, more repression, more poverty -- fewer opportunities for normal life to get in the way of the Great Struggle.

[K-W]

9. One can neither win nor lose a war on a tactic.

But other than that, an excellent point.

[Steel City Slim]

11. War On Terror

I don't think a war on terror can be won by military intervention.