What IS "The War on Terror"?

[Little Red Dog]

A lot is being said these days about rhetoric vs reality. And it occurred to me that I haven't seen or heard anyone define one of the favorite compound nouns of our time, "The War on Terror".

So what, exactly, is The War on Terror?

Is it local? Global? Religious? Economic? Political? All of the above? Or none of the above?

This is relevant come general election time, because, like it or not, the Democrats are going to have to explain how they intend to keep America safe and protect her interests in the world.

The Democrats are going to have to seriously challenge McCain on his foreign policy ideas and where they would lead us. In order to do that, SOMEONE is going to have to define The War on Terror.

So far, it seems to be talked about in the most general and vague terms. I don't think that's going to be good enough in November.

[Bill]

I do think the dems need to develop a more clearly stated policy regarding counterterrorism, as i was suggesting in this thread.

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=3853

The first step would be to reject soundly the jingoistic and terror-inducing foolishness of the label "war on terror".

In fact, I'll define the "war on terror" as a terror inducing tactic used by republicans to try to turn the US into a police state.

And it's primary result, as we've just seen in Pakistan, has been to give the terrorists EXACYLY what they want, which is greater power in their home countries, and a confused and unjustifiably frightened America.

[Little Red Dog]

I think that defining The War on Terror forces McCain to articulate how the Iraq War has helped us win said war. And I believe he would be hard pressed to make his case.

Since a large part of his platform is based on his commander in chief abilitities, this could be a major Achilles Heel for him.

[Bill]

So, how would you define it?

I've already said I believe that "War On ..." rhetoric should be rejected, in favor of rhetoric on the order of "Democratic Counterterrorism Policy".

But let's hear how you would keep the "War on Terror" going under Dem control.

[Frankg]

Originally posted by Little Red Dog
So what, exactly, is The War on Terror?

Little Red Dog

I am shocked why anyone would need a definition of the War on Terror after 2874 of your fellow amercians were killed by Al-Quada terrorists Sept 11, 2001

The war on terror is the ongoing struggle to defend this country against another terrorist attack , it's called a "war" because all it involves agencies like the CIA ,FBI , NSA and DHS working to protect american lives and it is has been successful since 9/11

It is not a conventional war where you have two armies on a battlefield but rather a massive ,ongoing covert operation using state of the art surveillance and wire tap techiques in order to gain valuable information that will prevent another terrorist attack

Due to the highly advanced and sophisticated nature of terrrorist groups like Al-Queada it is likely that this covert war could go on for many years since thier goal is to kill americans at any cost, we 're fighting an idea ,not an army


The War on Terrorism was authorized by the United States Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed on September 18, 2001.



SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=fubl040.107)

Fact Sheet: National Strategy for Homeland Security

On October 9, 2007, the President issued an updated National Strategy for Homeland Security, which will serve to guide, organize, and unify our Nation's homeland security efforts.
This Strategy is a national strategy – not a Federal strategy – and articulates our approach to secure the Homeland over the next several years. It builds on the first National Strategy for Homeland Security, issued in July 2002, and complements both the National Security Strategy issued in March 2006 and the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism issued in September 2006. It reflects our increased understanding of the threats confronting the United States, incorporates lessons learned from exercises and real-world catastrophes, and articulates how we should ensure our long-term success by strengthening the homeland security foundation we have built. This includes calling on Congress to make the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reforms in the Protect America Act of 2007 permanent.

Since September 11, 2001, our concept of securing the homeland has evolved, adapting to new realities and threats. The Strategy issued today incorporates this increased understanding by:
Acknowledging that while we must continue to focus on the persistent and evolving terrorist threat, we also must recognize that certain non-terrorist events that reach catastrophic levels can have significant implications for homeland security.
Emphasizing that as we secure the Homeland we cannot simply rely on defensive approaches and well-planned response and recovery measures. We recognize that our efforts also must involve offense at home and abroad.
Our National Efforts to Secure the Homeland
The Strategy provides a common framework through which our entire Nation – Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments, the private and non-profit sectors, communities, and individual citizens – should focus its homeland security efforts on the following four goals:

1. Prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks. To prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks in the United States, we are working to deny terrorists and terrorist-related weapons and materials entry into our country and across all international borders, disrupt terrorists' ability to operate within our borders, and prevent the emergence of violent Islamic radicalization in order to deny terrorists future recruits and to defeat homegrown extremism.

2. Protect the American people, our critical infrastructure, and key resources. To protect the lives and livelihoods of the American people, we must undertake measures to deter the threat of terrorism, mitigate the Nation's vulnerability to acts of terror and the full range of man-made and natural catastrophes, and minimize the consequences of an attack or disaster should it occur.

3. Respond to and recover from incidents that do occur. To save lives, mitigate suffering, and protect property in future catastrophes, we must strengthen the foundation of an effective, coordinated response. This includes clarifying roles and responsibilities across all levels of government and the private and non-profit sectors. We must also focus on ensuring we have the operational capabilities and flexibility necessary to facilitate both short-term recovery and an effective transition to long-term rebuilding and revitalization efforts.

4. Continue to strengthen the foundation to ensure our long-term success. To fulfill these responsibilities over the long term, we will continue to strengthen the principles, systems, structures, and institutions that cut across the homeland security enterprise and support our activities to secure the Homeland. Ultimately, this will help ensure the success of our Strategy to secure the Nation. This includes:

Applying a comprehensive approach to risk management. We must apply a risk-based framework across all homeland security efforts in order to identify and assess potential hazards (including their downstream effects), determine what levels of relative risk are acceptable, and prioritize and allocate resources among all homeland security partners, both public and private, to prevent, protect against, and respond to and recover from all manner of incidents.
Building a Culture of Preparedness. Our entire Nation shares common responsibilities in homeland security. In order to help prepare the Nation to carry out these responsibilities, we will continue to foster a Culture of Preparedness that permeates all levels of society – from individual citizens, businesses, and non-profit organizations to Federal, State, local, and Tribal government officials and authorities.
Developing a comprehensive Homeland Security Management System. In order to continue strengthening the foundations of a prepared Nation, we will establish and institutionalize a comprehensive Homeland Security Management System that incorporates all stakeholders. This system involves a continuous, mutually reinforcing cycle of activity across four phases – guidance; planning; execution; and assessment and evaluation.
Relevant departments and agencies of the Federal government must take the lead in implementing this system, and State, local, and Tribal governments are highly encouraged to ultimately adopt fully compatible and complementary processes and practices as part of a full-scale national effort.
In order to ensure the success of this system, our Nation must further develop a community of homeland security professionals by establishing multidisciplinary education opportunities. In addition to covering homeland and relevant national security issues, this education should include an understanding and appreciation of appropriate regions, religions, cultures, legal systems, and languages. We also must continue to develop interagency and intergovernmental assignments and fellowship opportunities, tying them to promotions and professional advancement


Improving incident management. We must develop a comprehensive approach to incident management that will help Federal, State, local, and Tribal authorities manage incidents across our goals of prevention, protection, and response and recovery. Our approach will build upon the existing National Incident Management System (NIMS) and help decision-making during crisis and periods of heightened concern.
Better utilizing science and technology. The United States derives much of its strength from its advantage in science and technology, and we must continue to use this advantage and encourage innovative research and development to assist in protecting and defending against the range of natural and man-made threats confronting the Homeland.
Using all instruments of national power and influence. The United States is using its instruments of national power and influence – diplomatic, information, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement – to prevent terrorism, protect the lives and livelihoods of the American people, and respond to and recover from incidents. We must build on these efforts, by continuing to enhance our processes for sharing all relevant and appropriate information throughout all levels of government and with our partners, and by prioritizing the continued transformation of our law enforcement and military.Working With Congress To Make FISA Reform Permanent, And Other Legislative Action
The U.S. Congress should take bold steps to fulfill its responsibilities in the national effort to secure the Homeland and protect the American people.

Congress should help ensure that we have the necessary tools to address changing technologies and homeland security threats while protecting privacy and civil liberties. We must make additional reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and ensure that the statute is permanently amended so that our intelligence professionals continue to have the legal tools they need to gather information about the intentions of our enemies while protecting the civil liberties of Americans.
Both houses of the Congress should take action to further streamline the organization and structure of those committees that authorize and appropriate homeland security-related funds and otherwise oversee homeland security missions.
The Congress should fully embrace a risk-based funding approach so that we best prioritize our limited resources to meet the most critical homeland security goals and objectives first. Progress Made Securing The Homeland
Since September 11, we have made extraordinary progress in securing our Homeland and fighting the War on Terror. We have:

Disrupted multiple potentially deadly plots against the United States. We have greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 9/11, which has constrained the ability of al-Qaeda to attack the Homeland and led terrorist groups to find that the United States is a harder target to strike.
Strengthened our ability to protect the American people by creating the Department of Homeland Security. We have also enhanced our homeland security and counterterrorism architecture through the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Homeland Security Council, the National Counterterrorism Center, and U.S. Northern Command, a Department of Defense combatant command focused on homeland defense and civil support.
Made our borders more secure. We are implementing an effective system of layered defense by strengthening the screening of people and goods overseas and by tracking and disrupting the international travel of terrorists.
Instituted an active, multi-layered approach to that integrates the capabilities of Tribal, local, State and Federal governments, as well as those of the private and non-profit sectors. In addition, Federal grant funding and technical assistance has also enhanced State, local and Tribal homeland security training and equipment, emergency management capabilities, and the interoperability of communications.
Worked with Congress to create, implement, and renew key legal reforms. The USA PATRIOT Act, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and the Protect America Act of 2007 promote security and help to implement 9/11 Commission and WMD Commission recommendations, while protecting our fundamental liberties.http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/

[Little Red Dog]

So, how would you define it?

I've already said I believe that "War On ..." rhetoric should be rejected, in favor of rhetoric on the order of "Democratic Counterterrorism Policy".

But let's hear how you would keep the "War on Terror" going under Dem control.

Like you, I don't like the term. I would dump it in favor of something more specific, like "counterterrorism policy". But I think it's certainly going to be used as an arrow in the GOP quiver come general election. And the Dems need to to be ready to counter. I don't know that anyone has talked about that.

[Little Red Dog]

Little Red Dog

I am shocked why anyone would need a definition of the War on Terror after 2874 of your fellow amercians were killed by Al-Quada terrorists Sept 11, 2001

The war on terror is the ongoing struggle to defend this country against another terrorist attack , it's called a "war" because all it involves agencies like the CIA ,FBI , NSA and DHS working to protect american lives and it is has been successful since 9/11

It is not a conventional war where you have two armies on a battlefield but rather a massive ,ongoing covert operation using state of the art surveillance and wire tap techiques in order to gain valuable information that will prevent another terrorist attack

Due to the highly advanced and sophisticated nature of terrrorist groups like Al-Queada it is likely that this covert war could go on for many years since thier goal is to kill americans at any cost, we 're fighting an idea ,not an army


More than 3,000 of my fellow Americans have been killed in Iraq, Frank. A country that did not attack us on 9/11.

You say that we are fighting The War on Terror using "a massive ,ongoing covert operation using state of the art surveillance and wire tap techiques in order to gain valuable information that will prevent another terrorist attack." OK. I'll take that at face value. So what the hell are we doing in Iraq?

The Iraq War is hardly "covert" Frank. And since our military forces are "over there" they can hardly defend us from an attack "over here". As you said, we may be fighting an idea, not an army. Ideas are not confined to countries.

The term "War on Terror" is intentionally vague to give the government the greatest possible latitude to act without oversight.

[Bill]

Like you, I don't like the term. I would dump it in favor of something more specific, like "counterterrorism policy". But I think it's certainly going to be used as an arrow in the GOP quiver come general election. And the Dems need to to be ready to counter. I don't know that anyone has talked about that.

Well, how would you construct a Dem "Counterterrorism Policy", if you were given the job?

I tend to agree with david Brin that we need to be aware of the possibility of an attack, either real or facilitated by the cia, before the election.

And SM makes a good point that such a facilitated attack might be even more likely in 2012.

And, I think the Dems need to start hammering home a clearly defined counterterror policy.

The question then is, what should be the key elements (the 'sound byte elements') of a dem counterterror policy?

[Bill]

It's a waste of time to dialogue with people like Frank.

You can use their fear as starting points for articulating a coherent counterterrorism policy, but you sure didn't do that with your reponse to him.

Remember, talk to the frame, not to the content in the frame.

If you had to extract any points from Frank's feartalk to use as debate points in a discussion of counterterrorism policy, what would those points be?

[Frankg]

It's a waste of time to dialogue with people like Frank.

You can use their fear as starting points for articulating a coherent counterterrorism policy, but you sure didn't do that with your reponse to him.

Remember, talk to the frame, not to the content in the frame.

If you had to extract any points from Frank's feartalk to use as debate points in a discussion of counterterrorism policy, what would those points be?

What an ignorant asshole , Bill accuses me of "feartalk" yet he's afraid to view any of my posts so he has me on ignore

[Frankg]

More than 3,000 of my fellow Americans have been killed in Iraq, Frank. A country that did not attack us on 9/11.

You say that we are fighting The War on Terror using "a massive ,ongoing covert operation using state of the art surveillance and wire tap techiques in order to gain valuable information that will prevent another terrorist attack." OK. I'll take that at face value. So what the hell are we doing in Iraq?

The Iraq War is hardly "covert" Frank. And since our military forces are "over there" they can hardly defend us from an attack "over here". As you said, we may be fighting an idea, not an army. Ideas are not confined to countries.

The term "War on Terror" is intentionally vague to give the government the greatest possible latitude to act without oversight.

Whose talking about Iraq Little Red Dog, I'm not ...at least I don't think I was , the war in Iraq is not the war on terrorism , at least not when it started , however now its over , we have won , Al-Quaeda tried to overthrow the Iraqi government but were not successful , its just another battle we have won in the war on terror

Hooray for the goodguys ....yes ?

[Moby]

I believe the war on terror is two pronged.

"It is a battle against forces that wish to push the USA out of the Middle East and a propaganda attack against the American people."

1. We were attacked immediately after George W. Bush came back from the longest vacation any first term President has taken in the history of America. That started a war that took us into Afgahnistan and when we were unable to capture the leading figure head we gave into his demands and pulled out troops out of Saudi Arabia.

It's not really a war since there is no declaration against a hostile force. However, it is ongoing just like it has been for a generation and will be as long as we are nation building in the Middle East.

2. It's also a terror war designed to control the American people. It's the propaganda piece that the republican party has used over and over again against the people of the USA. Sure there is a threat and there has always been a threat. When leaders want to calm a population they tell them to calm and act like they're in control. Our leaders tell us to panic and claim that they can't protect us unless we do exactly as we're told.

[Bill]

Well, the question on the table isn't about what the republicans did in the name of their "War on Terror".

It's what should we have in the democratic party platform about terrorism and counterterrorism policy?

Iraq, technically, is a seperate third topic that has nothing to do with counterterrorism, so, we will also need to formulate a coherent Iraq policy, also.

Some of the lessons we learned in Iraq can be applied to a counterterrorism policy, however. For example, we learned that traditional military occupation isn't a good reponse to guerilla fighters - and that when we moved outside the field military model, and started to do investigations, and enlist the help of the locals, we made much better headway.

I think the Dem couterterrorism policy should be based firstly on investigative co-operation between nations.

The first priority in this would be to rebuild the trust we used to have with other nations, in part by giving them training and equipment to develop their own investigative forces.

The republicans threw all the taxpayers money into offense (afghanistan and iraq, billions to Musharraf and the Paks, huge arms sales to our various friends around the world, especially to the oil sovereigns). I would say the Dems should focus on defense.

Which means a program to secure borders, ports, and travel. Finish the job the the republicans said they would do, and never did.

I think we need to restore and rebuild our military, along entirely new lines. Right now if there were, say, a big military confrontation with china or russia, we are limited in our reponse. We can nuke them, but we don't have a fresh and rested and fully equipped force of men to oppose them on the ground.

Etc, etc - the Dems do need to be more agressive in outlining and soundbyteing their counterterrorism aand security policies.

The Iraq war will still be a big issue come November. We have to have a plan ready for how to deal with it.

As everybody here should know by now, I'm neither for a withdrawal, nor do I believe a withdrawal is possible, because of the oil. And because we owe the Iraqs, an innocent people whom we attacked on false pretenses because of a bad president, the debt of aid.

[mwillman]

The War on Terror is a catch phrase created by those that want to keep milking the american tax payer. Terrorism has been around for ever. You cannot have a war on an emotion nor can you on a tactic.

I think counter terrorism is something we have to be vary serious about but that has nothing to do with the "War on Terror".

[disrupter]

Let me guess,
i can do this,

'It is hype used to terrify & subdue people.'

did i get it?
did i answer right?
what prize did i win?

[kres24GT]

It's like the war on drugs or the war on poverty. Big government speak designed to strike fear in the people to voting for their candidates and make it seem like the politcians are doing their job.

[disrupter]

So we can all be together on the wrong side of an issue, again?

Would a 'war on wars' work?

the newest sound bite.

We will kill people until there is no one left to fight.

Let us never bend to & embraces people's capacity for rational reasonable thought. Just kill em all.
Life is a 3D shooter video game.

I suppose theoretically it comes down to whether we are creating new people, not exercised in rational thought faster than we can talk with existing rational people?
Are we pooping out people faster than we can sanely educate/organize them?

[asroc]

war against ideas

[Independent Harry]

Well, the question on the table isn't about what the republicans did in the name of their "War on Terror".

It's what should we have in the democratic party platform about terrorism and counterterrorism policy?

Iraq, technically, is a seperate third topic that has nothing to do with counterterrorism, so, we will also need to formulate a coherent Iraq policy, also.

Some of the lessons we learned in Iraq can be applied to a counterterrorism policy, however. For example, we learned that traditional military occupation isn't a good reponse to guerilla fighters - and that when we moved outside the field military model, and started to do investigations, and enlist the help of the locals, we made much better headway.

I think the Dem couterterrorism policy should be based firstly on investigative co-operation between nations.

The first priority in this would be to rebuild the trust we used to have with other nations, in part by giving them training and equipment to develop their own investigative forces.

The republicans threw all the taxpayers money into offense (afghanistan and iraq, billions to Musharraf and the Paks, huge arms sales to our various friends around the world, especially to the oil sovereigns). I would say the Dems should focus on defense.

Which means a program to secure borders, ports, and travel. Finish the job the the republicans said they would do, and never did.

I think we need to restore and rebuild our military, along entirely new lines. Right now if there were, say, a big military confrontation with china or russia, we are limited in our reponse. We can nuke them, but we don't have a fresh and rested and fully equipped force of men to oppose them on the ground.

Etc, etc - the Dems do need to be more agressive in outlining and soundbyteing their counterterrorism aand security policies.

The Iraq war will still be a big issue come November. We have to have a plan ready for how to deal with it.

As everybody here should know by now, I'm neither for a withdrawal, nor do I believe a withdrawal is possible, because of the oil. And because we owe the Iraqs, an innocent people whom we attacked on false pretenses because of a bad president, the debt of aid.

I think we should have history be a required subject for our politicians. Every morning they get an hour lesson in history. Then we could avoid making hte same mistake of trying to occupy a country against guerilla tactics. it hasn't worked since 1776. Why the hell would it work now...

[disrupter]

(adapting from asroc's post)
The GOP's 'War on Thinking'
'War on Thought'

Operate on autonomic nervous system only, no thinking needed, just pre-programmed agenda based on faith.

'War on Science'
'War on Intellect'
'War on Brains'

Now if we just have a
'War on Breathing'
we can save the planet from us.

[asroc]

civics should be required in public schools

[disrupter]

I remember civics & social studies from my day,
less than 1/2 a century ago.

If you don't learn some basics of how your government operates should you really be out there voting?

I think we need to require that all people, not just immigrants pass some basic tests before becoming citizens of the US.

If you are born here you are a legal resident, but until you pass some very minimal hurdle you shouldn't be granted a citizen's right to vote.

If you can't be bothered you don't deserve it.

It is the birthright inheritance of kings that got royal systems into trouble,
you just never know how the next generation is going to turn out.
This is a minimalist meritocracy, requiring minimal tests for official, voting citizenship.

Life & legal residency is gratis,
directive citizenship should at least be minimally earned.

[kres24GT]

civics should be required in public schools


So should basic economics. Will never happen though. Politicians need to keep the majority of the masses ignorant.