Evaluate this sentence, and give me your views on it.

[Bluesman]

"If we can't win The War on Terrorism cleanly, we don't deserve to win it all."

I'm curious what everybody thinks, from the academics, the military/defense types, the Man-in-the-Street. I swear - no, I REALLY SWEAR - I will not abuse ANYbody that posts an answer here. I just want to know where I fit in the continuum of opinion, here, and I'd like a look into some of the minds that I may or may not have something in common with.

So, post a long or a short answer, with or without citations/articles/facts/figures, whatever you think would clarify your thoughts for the rest of us.

I will go radio-silent on this thread unless somebody explicitly asks for me to respond to them, and only them. I won't cut in on anybody else's post.

If you don't recognize this for what it is, it's an attempt by me to try to 'normalize' a bit. I have been fairly fulminous, and I know that. Perhaps you can help. Tell me what's in your head on this narrow but extremely important matter.

You all already know where I stand. Bluesman OUT!

[Parihaka]

I believe I outlined my opinion here

We need to have faith in ourselves and our own people that, just as our ancestors did, we can be ruthless with those who deserve it and not become monsters ourselves in the process.

[Luke Gu]

[/QUOTE]

"If we can't win The War on Terrorism cleanly, we don't deserve to win it all."

Bluesman，I think these words is American say to American。I think it's A nonsense。You can't win The War on Terrorism cleanly，but you deserve to win it。I don't think destroy the terrorist organizations is enough to ensure the safety of Americans，why not solve the origin why these guys hate US。If US can't solve it，the result will be a terrorist organizations is destoried，another is built up，so how to win The War on Terrorism cleanly？

[silentsam]

I imagine that I would be considered a hypocrite by some. I don’t believe the end is justified by any and all means, but do believe that we need to be able to fight on a level playing field. It is not possible to effectively engage the enemy, while ensuring that the enemy enjoys all of the rights that they seek to ignore/destroy. There is a line somewhere that we are not able to cross. I don’t know whether this line is at the point of removing the fingernails of a terrorist to stop a bomb, or nearer in…

Please do give us your interpretation of the sentence. It would be interesting to see where we all fit along the continuum.

[Native]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but the definition of "cleanly".

I am all for kidnapping and assassinating real terrorists, the kind that blow up planes and busses.

But where the line is drawn and where it gets moved to, that's the problem.

[pChan]

The fundamental nature of war requires a certain suspension of human rights in the realm of conflict. The definition of "cleanly" will change when terrorists get hold of nukes or weapons that inflict unimaginable damage. Some wars have be won. Remember the Germans were bombed to oblivion. This war has to be won.

And this war will be won when the likes of Obama oscillating in decision making are booted out of leadership.

[Knaur Amarsh]

I disagree with the statement, and IMHO the war on terror cannot be won cleanly at all.

Am talking not specifically about the GWOT, but against terrorism in general from the perspective of a country whose leadership has proven woefully inadequate in combating terror and supporting the troops fighting against it. Most would think of me as too extreme but I'd even support illegal incarceration of their loved ones, and ensuring they are socially boycotted and live in hell instead of in the glory and comfort of being the kin of "martyrs". I support everything, including torture and detention of not only convicted terrorists but also of sleeper cell members who cannot be proven guilty in a court of law, unsanctioned assassinations, anything at all that gives us an edge against the terrorists. I support what some consider draconian powers for those in the front line of fighting terror, because its necessary for them to deal with the scum they are fighting and emerge victorious.

When it comes to fighting terrorists, I don't draw the line anywhere, I trust our troops to draw that line themselves.

[tankie]

I disagree with the statement, and IMHO the war on terror cannot be won cleanly at all.

Am talking not specifically about the GWOT, but against terrorism in general from the perspective of a country whose leadership has proven woefully inadequate in combating terror and supporting the troops fighting against it. Most would think of me as too extreme but I'd even support illegal incarceration of their loved ones, and ensuring they are socially boycotted and live in hell instead of in the glory and comfort of being the kin of "martyrs". I support everything, including torture and detention of not only convicted terrorists but also of sleeper cell members who cannot be proven guilty in a court of law, unsanctioned assassinations, anything at all that gives us an edge against the terrorists. I support what some consider draconian powers for those in the front line of fighting terror, because its necessary for them to deal with the scum they are fighting and emerge victorious.

When it comes to fighting terrorists, I don't draw the line anywhere, I trust our troops to draw that line themselves.

Wow , well said , i concur .;)

[omon]

sounds like oxymoron to me, there is no such thing as a clean war.
what ppl don't realize is sheep can't kill a wolf, you got to be a wolf to fight a wolf.,

[Blue]

"If we can't win The War on Terrorism cleanly, we don't deserve to win it all."

Sounds like someone is more than a bit naive, ignorant actually, to the ways of the world. Who said it?

[zara]

Well I think theres a distinction between 'the war on terror' and a normal war. I think its safe to say that terrorism will always be with us, even long after the Al Queda conflict becomes ancient history. So once we acknowledge that we have to set standards of behaviour for ourselves, or we go down the slippery slope to becoming barbarians ourselves.

Its too idealistic to think that you cant get your hands dirty when your fighting a foe with no honour or humanitarian instincts of their own like the taliban or terrorists/militants in Iraq. Clearly mistakes like the allied bombing of the wedding party in afghanistan are going to happen. The military have to make split second judgement calls on limited information and sometimes theyre going to get it wrong.

I think to steal a phrase from bush... we should 'ere on the side of restraint'.

[highsea]

Blues- I'd say the left has already surrendered the WOT.

They've moved on to losing the Cold War.

[S2]

Values

"Clearly mistakes like the allied bombing of the wedding party in afghanistan are going to happen."

Right but the whole world knows that another wedding party died when the taliban COMMAND-detonated a land-mine on a route that would be later used, hopefully, to go to and from a polling station.

A message needed to be sent and mankind is O.K. with it.

We KNOW that afghan civilians recently died in a NATO airstrike on gasoline trucks. For shame on us. Nevermind that they were openly colluding with a known enemy of their own government while stealing gasoline from the rightful owner.

Poor or not, what are your ethics?

We KNOW that the taliban are responsible for the majority of afghan deaths by nearly 2-1 according to both the U.N. and HRW. We KNOW they've commonly used human shields where unable to face the certainty of their destruction. We KNOW they've targeted their own muslim kind to perpetuate their message.

We KNOW they'll willingly disfigure schoolgirls.

A taliban leader died under suspicious circumstances in a Pakistani prison following his capture in SWAT recently. Is BAGRAM, GUANTANAMO, or ABU GHRAIB on the lips of any Pakistanis now? Go check the responses over on def.pk and draw your own conclusions.

Sorry. I didn't specify. The murdered insurgent is a "bad" taliban. The "good" kind are the ones sequestered luxuriously in the surroundings of Quetta, courtesy of these same jailers.

Ally (or not), what are your ethics?

CLEAN? I'm comfortable with collective culpability. America is culpable, collectively, with tolerating leaders who couch war in images of rehabilitation and MARSHALL plans BEFORE we've rendered our enemies prostrate before us-not after.

Magnanimous in victory, but our magnanimity seems to be extending to learning the ways of a gracious loser and we appear to lay the seeds of our defeat LOOOOONG before they flower.

Well. We're ahead of the world here. At least we're half in, or so. Plenty of blood-thirsty, ex-U.S. servicemen that, after twenty plus years of this sh!t, know the real face of our enemy to keep the pot at least stirred. We'll see who else in the next two decades can learn their object lessons to the new realities in the proper perspective.

We ain't liked, folks, for one simple reason. We've a better way of life that many can't possibly hope to find themselves. It's borne of our ethic and determination to meld this land of ours to our ends. Others have done as well. Many, many haven't and resent what we have.

They'll try to take it. If they can't, they'll try to destroy it. We have friends- a solid few in whom I take solace. They are worthy people and deserve ALL our protection and support.

Beyond that, gird your loins, sharpen your swords, and prepare for war because the 21st century is going to make the last 100 years puppy-stuff.

Thanks.

[Bluesman]

I imagine that I would be considered a hypocrite by some. I don’t believe the end is justified by any and all means, but do believe that we need to be able to fight on a level playing field. It is not possible to effectively engage the enemy, while ensuring that the enemy enjoys all of the rights that they seek to ignore/destroy. There is a line somewhere that we are not able to cross. I don’t know whether this line is at the point of removing the fingernails of a terrorist to stop a bomb, or nearer in…

Please do give us your interpretation of the sentence. It would be interesting to see where we all fit along the continuum.

Well, MY interpretation of that sentence is that if we bend to necessity, then we've fundamentally altered what we are as a country to such a detriment to ourselves that we can no longer claim any 'right' to prevail.

I think that's insane.

I think that it is EVIL for America to lose a war, because what follows from that is far worse than not fighting as hard as we need to to win. The consequences of losing a war are what REALLY alters the nature of the country, and I witnessed it myself after Vietnam. Although MANY immoral things were done during that war, most weren't done in the service of winning it, and many, MANY more evil acts, of a far greater magnitude, followed after we made the decision to lose.

So, my position is this: we do what we need to do to WIN. Not EVERYTHING, just what's necessary. Obviously, this isn't a finely-calibrated cost-sheet, and you deduct from your account enough to pay the bill. It's rather fuzzier than that, and the inexactitude is what leads to a lost war, if you 'under-bid'.

Lord North, King George III's main advisor before and during the American Revolution, cautioned his sovereign that IF His Majesty contemplated using force to bring his rebellious colonies to heel, he had better not go cheap. Bring all the force you think you're going to need, double it, and add ten percent, just to be sure. If you try to shave a few pence here and there...we risk the whole enchilada.

He was right; he was ignored. Thank God. Because there really is NO WAY we could've beat the Brit 'A' game. That's not what they brought, and the United States of America exists for exactly that reason, against all odds.

I see the War on Terrorism, Efforts Required to Win, in the same terms as Lord North: pull the punch, and you're going to get a curb-stomp from a guy that ordinarily couldn't stand in the ring with you. And what follows from that will make Gitmo, waterboarding, denial of habeus corpus, and all the other supposedly awful things we've done in our own defense as absolutely of no account. Compared to the evil that our opponents will do to us, their own women, each other, and every bare leg that these mad dogs can bite anywhere in the world, I'm prepared to do all that we've done, and a whole lot more. We, in our most barbaric animalistic state would never approach the savagery of the forces unleashed by failing to stop them.

Use any and all means to WIN. Regardless of how ugly that will be, it is simply orderes of magnitude lower than the alternative.

WIN IT. We'll argue about the uglier aspects when the smoke clears, and our children are safe again.

[Silent Hunter]

"If we can't win The War on Terrorism cleanly, we don't deserve to win it all."

I agree that you deserve to win.

However, fighting dirty may be counter-productive at times.