Is the War on Terror a real war?

Today in ATS chat an interesting conversation sprung up. There were a couple of people with varying positions but I wanted to get a wider viewpoint.

The major disagreement was whether or not we (allied nations that are fighting the 'War on Terror') are actually at war or not.

Politicians constantly reference the War on Terror to whip up some quick support. Countries like the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, and many others have troops on foreign soil serving combat and support roles but have no active declaration of war. Are these pursuits outside of what should be recognized as "war" or are our countries at war?

As a side topic, do you think the recent uprisings in the Middle East are isolated events, or has the last 10 years all been part of the same master plan?

I am asking for opinion, but opinion backed with evidence is greatly appreciated. Rather than express the views of the various people involved in this conversation I have asked them to express their views themselves.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


About as real as the war on drugs...

The illusion is war because of terrorist. The reality is the terrorists are innocent people fighting back.

This is not war on terror, this is a war on your freedom.

A real war has victory as a goal.

We had the War on Poverty - now we have more poverty.

We had/have the War on Drugs - now we have more drugs.

We have the War on Terrorism - now we have more terrorism [TSA, FEMA, etc]

The events are real, but the goals are hidden. The titles "War on Whatever" don't mean anything.

No, its not a real war, its about as real as the war on germs that many advertisers use to hawk their cleaning products. Terror will always exist as long as its a means to an end. We can always mitigate the effect, but as long as we can be terrorised, terrorism will always be there. Given that fact, the terror side of the 'war' has already won, because they are undefeatable.

I think that it should be renamed to the war on terror in the middle-east. Terror is not exclusive to the middle east. Or maybe the war on extremism in the middle east, because we're not only combatting terror related activities we're also trying to change extremist views that cause the problem. We're not in a constant state of terror either, so who are we fighting when we're not being terrorised.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Whatever word games people want to play or technicallities one wants to get into, the reality of the situation on the ground is that it is most definitely a war. Believe me.

reply to post by 35Foxtrot


I didn't think OP was talking in a literally sense. Because obviously we are engaged in an armed conflict with peoples who commit acts of terror. Literally a war.
I thought he was talking in the sense that, we're not fighting a nation or a race of people. We're fighting against an idea, the idea that terror can be used as a means to an end. We're not at war against Afghanistan, yet we're fighting there against people that live there. Its not the war against Afghanistan (unless there is some hidden agenda). I think the point is a lot more complicated than, "Yes we're killing people and people are being killed, then its a war"

reply to post by TinkerHaus



How do you wage war on a philosophy...???

No, what this really is, is a war on organized terrorist groups. Of course, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

But, basically, those who would deliberately target civilians (vs. collateral damage), are those targeted by the effort. From what I've seen, we're largely targeting those affiliated with groups that have made plans or threats (or attacks) in the past, and killing or capturing them.

The other track here (and I more approve of this one) is the effort to cut off the funds of these individuals, and keep them from financing such attacks.

one thing i still can't wrap my mind around is that after invading the middle east we have a present with the middle name "hussein"

one thing i still can't wrap my mind around is that after invading the middle east we have a present with the middle name "hussein"

It's about as real as the war on drugs or the war on poverty.

Sorry I didn't reply yesterday - I had to leave and didn't get home until late.

Xertious, I was talking in a literal sense but I think your point is valid and relevant as well. We are fighting an ideology (even if it was an ideology formed due to blowback.

You bring up a good question? How can we EVER win a war against an idea?

Will it ever stop? Will there always be groups that threaten our security so that we will forever be committing such a huge part of our money and resources to defending against the threat? If today's threat is eliminated will another spring up take it's place? If no threat exists would those who benefit create new threats to forever milk the cash cow? Are today's threats created and maintained toward that goal?

I really think this is the ultimate in double speak. I don't know how politicians can call this a war yet officially we are not at war. We don't even have a wartime economy.. At least, not the kind that benefits the working class.

If these groups hate us because of our actions in the past - just imagine the blowback from Egypt, Libya, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan... and that's only this one small region.

Time to bring the troops home and do our best to repair the damage already done, both at home and abroad.

Originally posted by n00bUK
The illusion is war because of terrorist. The reality is the terrorists are innocent people fighting back.

This is not war on terror, this is a war on your freedom.

How can this be so obvious to most of us and seems so impossible to most people?

It's almost like the whole world accepts that warmongering, profiteering, evil men are steering this ship. In my opinion mutiny is long overdue.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


I think the extremists saying its blowback is an excuse, not that there is ever a valid excuse for the acts of terror they've done, but I don't think it a real reason they're doing this. They try to link it to the holy crusades, and use that as an excuse. We pulled out of the middle east and let them have their (our) holy lands, we thought to defend them ok, but they thought back, it was a war with two participants. America went into Iraq, thats used an excuse for terror, even then they waited after we went in again before they were pissed off about it. Whatever the reasons were (oil etc) we liberated their people, gave them freedom of choice of their leader, if they wanted another dictator again they can elect one. People died, troops (mainly US) did some horrible things, but horrible things were happening anyway. We eventually pulled out and now we're in Afghanistan. Terorr attacks have decreased.

I think the sole reason behind terroris is to spread their message of hate. I think even if we pulled out of the middle east completly and had no interests there and left them to theirselve, they'd still commit acts of terror to spread their message of hate against Christianity and atheism.

I'd like to point out we're not hated in the middle east, there are alot of people out there with common sense, and an understanding of what went on. It is only extremism we are fighting.
I don't want this to sound racist or anything, but I think certain aspects of the Muslim religion are extreme, and encourages reactionary responses. Like the accidental burning of Korans, caused rioting and extreme backlash for an honest oversight. (I'd also like to point out that Afghan workers who noticed this, worked there and let Korans burn before making a big deal about it.) I understand that the Koran is sacred, but nobody is condemning the people who are rioting, so its acceptable that people should react this.
Now, my point is, that this sort of extreme actions which make little sense to us, are the way they're defending their religion and way of life.
I don't think we can beat an ideal that is inbred into a faith. It would be as difficult as wiping out the religion.

The words "war" and "terror" are emotive words used to ensure we live in fear and do not object to our governments actions. The people we call terrorists are just the people who replaced the "commies" as our mortal enemy. We need an enemy to live in fear and emotive words are needed to enforce this fear.

The actions of our government are not to protect us despite what they say and they gain our support by the use of fear, they are the actions of puppets who do the bidding of their masters. The masters should be us the people, but unfortunately we are not. IMO.

I think the extremists saying its blowback is an excuse, not that there is ever a valid excuse for the acts of terror they've done, but I don't think it a real reason they're doing this. They try to link it to the holy crusades, and use that as an excuse

Correct on the no excuse for such tactics front. It should never be "acceptable" to deliberately target civilians. However, there is a real reason behind it. That reason varies based on location. For example, in Iraq, it was to create an environment of fear to prevent people from voting, and to make the American public's opinion switch to leave Iraq. The WTC attack was to protest the American presence in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations.

Terrorism is always done for the same reason...it can be an effective tactic when your enemy has you outgunned. Simple as that. The irony is claiming religious justification when even Islam does not really condone the killing of innocents, any more than any other religion.

One can never "win" a war on terror, because as long as there is a cause that can be furthered by terrorism, there will be terrorists using this means to that end.

reply to post by Gazrok


Gazrok,

I really appreciate you separating Islam from terrorism's attempts at religious justification.

Just like any religion, race, or country, there are extreme and moderate views. I wish everyone was able to separate the two.