I think you fail to take into consideration that this is not a typical war. Al Queida has training camps around the world, and the Taliban cooperates with Al Quieda. Comparing Obama to Bush is what I object too. Obama inherited this mess and and it would be unwise to just let them all out immediately.

Not only don't I take into consideration that this is not a "typical war" I don't consider any of these military engagements a war at all. The phrase you use is as inane as the "war on drugs." I have consistently labeled both Afghanistan and Iraq immoral and illegal occupations and an exploitation of other countries for their resources. But aside from that distinction, no matter who we pick up and detain under all circumstances and for any reason, they should have a right to contest their detention in a fair and impartial court of law. What are you afraid of? That we can't convict these people? It seems you are just fine with holding people indefinitely in some secret prison because you trust our government to be doing the right thing or because Obama inherited this mess from Bush. I am not. There is a very short line between our government doing it to someone else and being able to do the same to you or me. Do you think these terrorists are any worse than Timothy McVeigh? We gave him a speedy trial and convicted him and then put him to death.

Also I am less worried about the harm al qaeda may cause to us versus the harm and severe damage our own government can and will cause if we don't stand up for our values and principles.

Jebbie, I should have listened to you and stopped wasting my time with this person. Get me out of this hellhole!

Well, that all depends on one's definitions. I would tend to agree with you and your point, because the USA is not supposed to fight "wars" unless Congress officially declares same and they have not. However, we do have a fourth generation war going on. It does not look like the classic 3rd generation warfare of WWII, but it is warfare.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare
or click sig.

"The military doctrine was first defined in 1989 by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, used to describe warfare's return to a decentralized form."

It's just a POLICY.

Congress hasn't declared war, and even if they had, one of the things about a "war" is that you have two centralized groups in combat.

Al Qaeda isn't an "army." It isn't a country, and the al Qaeda fighters are not soldiers.

The main reason it's important to keep this all in mind is because "al Qaeda" can be better understood if thought of as a "concept."

ANY Islamist who hates Western imperialism and decides to attack people/institutions they see as supporting that imperialism can identify with al Qaeda. That means no matter who we blow up or imprison or torture to death, we will not "break the back" of al Qaeda. More people are born everyday. Some of these people are going to decide to attack "America" or at least "American interests" whether they ever meet another al Qaeda member or not.

There's no central repository where al Qaeda keeps its wealth, or its evil plans, or its members. Destruction of any (even EVERY) "terrorist cell" does not bring an END to the war on terror. Even if we had bin Laden in custody and he put out a video saying that he's made peace with the USA, there would be others who would reject his words and go blow themselves up in a shopping mall.

Pretending this is a "war" is one of the most serious errors in conception we've made to date.

It's not a war, and if we continue to let this falsehood go unchallenged, we're just allowing another failed policy to remain in place, perhaps for decades.

It's not worth it.

I mean, do you really think they are a threat to you if we release them back to Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever? Really?

-- Retzilian

I'm not worried about terrorists blowing me u. I think Bush over reacted. However many countries do think they are a threat. I guess you have missed the news that Obama administration is having trouble getting countries to agree to take released prisoners.

I think you fail to take into consideration that this is not a typical war. Al Queida has training camps around the world, and the Taliban cooperates with Al Quieda. Comparing Obama to Bush is what I object too. Obama inherited this mess and and it would be unwise to just let them all out immediately.

Having engaged in several "false starts", I have to stop and admit that I'm not sure how best to respond to your reply to my earlier comment.

But I do want to go on record as saying, you're right, I did assume you were living in the United States. However, I did not make any assumptions regarding your views or how they are formed - which is why I said I'd be "curious" to know them.

In fairness, I did beseech you (to put it more politely) to be more skeptical regarding Obama's pursuit of more war. Having re-read your comment in reply several times, I'm inclined to repeat my request!

Frankly, I'm not quite sure what to make of it, as much of it appears to be contradictory (especially your last paragraph, which makes me wonder whether a point-by-point rebuttal is going to be of any use).

For example, you indicate that you would "shy away from" any "decisive statement" that Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Since at least May/June of last year (i.e., during the campaign), Obama has, on several occasions, stated as fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (and the most recent such statement that I recall was in early/mid February 2009, i.e., after taking office).

So I presume you agree with me in regards to Iran (or perhaps you don't think such statements could lead to more 'war', in which case, we'll have to agree to disagree).

The indiscriminate blending of Afghanistan with Pakistan (into the repugnant "Af-Pak" and the over-arching "Taliban") is, in my view, a disingenuous attempt to obscure and exploit in order to expand an already wrong-headed war without the need for legal niceties. What you call a "detrimental effect", I prefer to refer to as the killing of innocent civilians, increasing anti-Americanism and the undermining of the stability of the Pakistani government.

But here I run headlong into your final paragraph, where you appear to agree that the "war" on "terror" was (sic) a "bunch of crap" (you do realize it's not over, right?).

You claim that (a) bombs don't change people's minds; and (b) there will always be "nutters". Then you appear to advocate dealing with the inextinguishable nutters with a mixture of that which you claim works (carrots) with that which you claim doesn't work (sticks, i.e., bombs). In support, you cite instances of terrorism that clearly demonstrate the futility of bombs and war (London and Spain, both of which were homegrown incidents in reaction against the "war").

In sum, I don't see a coherent view in what you've written, so rather than spend more time, I'll leave open to your own research what's been happening in Somalia and in Iraq (with regards to the SOFA). But I think if you engage in a closer examination of what you've written, you may find you're a bigger fan of the "war" on "terror" than you realize...In which case, you'll probably have no trouble "seeing" Al-Qaeda in Somalia and the pull-out of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities.