To Win the War on Terror(tm) We Must...End It?

[deathofcheese]

Since maybe this will end up as a big shitstorm of debate, I'm going to post it here to begin with instead of in Headlines.

The premise of this thread is to discuss the following conjecture: To destroy Al Qaeda, we must end the war on terror.

Story on Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/29/to-destroy-al-qaeda.html)
Blog post about RAND's report (http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/terrorisms-end/)
Report from RAND Corporation (http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html)

Personally, I agree and disagree with the report. I disagree in that we need to use force (as diplomacy works less often than never) in order to protect our interests and ourselves from terrorist activities. However, this use of force only seems to further spark more terrorist activities, so the answer might become "so stop fighting terrorists with armies". While getting involved in Iraq might've been a misstep, I think military action in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary, if not to put a forceful and quick end to terrorist activity in that country, but to provide a sense of closure and revenge for 9/11.

[SomaticCorpse]

While I agree with the association that we are vindicated by going to Afghanistan, I do have to say that we (as Americans) have been arrogant the whole time.

Please don't take offense, when I say that, either. Take Pearl Harbor, for example. 7 Dec 1941, Japan surprise attacked us. 60 years later, the Twin Towers were hit.

The danger has always been prevalent; and it will always be there. No matter what you to do make a utopia (or something close to it), someone will always be the antithesis to that: There will always be an enemy.

Of course, there are examples of 'battles/wars', which we won with diplomacy. Take The Cuban Missile Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis) or The Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War), for examples.

I'm not saying that these venues would have succeeded, here... ...but we negate the pretense of 'trying' and thusly, don't save face in the international community.

The issue becomes: How far will we go, before we become bankrupt or worse? Are we willing to stretch our economy as far as it can go, and risk another depression?

There are issues at home that could be far more dangerous than some guy we still can't find, in Afghanistan.

Of course, if we found him and killed him, would he not become a martyr? Perhaps, this is why it hasn't happened...

There are too many conditions to consider, for this to just be a 'yes' and 'no' conversation.