Anthrax attacks.

You keep conveniently forgetting those, Ped

And “war” is the wrong metaphor. Germany wasn’t exactly at “war” with Baader-Meinhof, either (although those terrorists were arguably more insane, claiming to be horribly oppressed in what was then West Germany)

Two points:

1.) There were 8 years between WTC attacks so five years is hardly a good safety record.

2.) Several of your allies were attacked in those five years. As were numerous American targets overseas. Overall terrorism is up.

Calling this war sounds less stupid than calling it a crusade. But…
“the gut response to 9/11 of most Americans - including myself - was and is “we have to destroy these people”. Saying that we need to reexamine the very way we think just seems like happy talk without validity… They want us dead, so we need to kill them and lock them up if we want to survive.”

You say, “gut response” and Bush says, “Feels good!”
and Cheney promotes his “1% doctrine” of hysterical convulsion at every hint of a threat.

Terrorist gangs have existed before, and others exist today. None have gained the credibility of Al Q because none of them had the benefit of a president who declares war on them, and lets their leaders go free, and wastes the lives of thousands of our soldiers, and slaughters hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders, and generally elides from any effective attack on, you know, terrorists.

We could have treated Ossama bin Ladin, correctly, as a homicidal maniac who lead a bunch of thugs to violate international law. We had the world eager to help us apprehend them. On 9/12 they had nowhere to run. Any nation, given trivial diplomacy (I specifically include Afghanistan) would have either turned them over, or invited us in to get them. By contrast, declaring war on Al Q gave it instant credibility.

The longer we treat this as a war, the more credibility and recruits Al Q can depend on. Alternately, we could “reexamine the very way we think” and decide to do what works, instead of doing more of what has already failed.

How does treating this as a war do us any good?

We are not “At War”.

Our fine Military won the war with Iraq when the “Operation Rolling Thunder” elements of the 7th Cavalry ran thru the streets of Baghdad unopposed in early April 2003, less than three weeks after it started.

We then began the phase we are in now, not a war, but an Occupation of Iraq.

As to the “War on Terror”, in my view it’s just a focus-tested GOP propaganda ploy. “Terror”is an emotion, not an army. Terrorism is a POLITICAL tactic, not a military one.

The struggle against our TERRORIST enemies is therefore a political one, not a military one. Military froce is just one of the tools we need to use, not the main or the only way we can eliminate them.

THAT will necessarily begin with good intel, with good relationships abroad that can help isolate and hold and control the isolated elements so we can apply surgical force.

But, Ollie, this is very important: The MAIN, and maybe the ONLY tool that Western cultures have for the long road forward aginst extremism of all types is the perception of JUSTICE.

Without JUSTICE, there can be no PEACE.

But politically, it’s an even worse idea. I don’t believe in mindlessly following the masses on things but the gut response to 9/11 of most Americans - including myself - was and is “we have to destroy these people”. Saying that we need to reexamine the very way we think just seems like happy talk without validity. Do I think a war on terror involves more than military action? Yes. It involves military, law enforcement, humanitarian aid, diplomacy, etc. But the IRA was a fundamentally more rational foe than Al Qaeda is. The IRA was more akin to the Soviet Union in that they were an enemy but not insane.

It’s the most base of human instincts - but it is us or them. They want us dead, so we need to kill them and lock them up if we want to survive.

Did you see Kucinich on Bill Maher Friday night? I’m no Kucinich fan, but he said some valid things.

And one of these is, that this is not a war in the sense that they’ve always been fought. This is not a conflict with a soverign entity. And the armed forces might not be the best way to approach this. Different tactics are called for. Americans are all too obsessive about attaching “war” to everything. Let’s think about this in a different way.

I don’t believe that we can conclude that Europeans are “fighting a war” against this, either. I think the British figured out that a war against the IRA wasn’t ever going to work. So, they approached it a different way and so far its working out, with the big dog’s help.

You can’t fight a war against an abstract noun. One progressive’s opinion.

What many people forget or refuse to accept is that France, Germany and the UK have been fighting this war far longer than we have.

And Oliver it is no more a war on Terror than WWII was a war on Blitzkrieg. Terror is a tactic. This is a conflict against a specific breed of radical religious Islamic Nationalism.

In 2002 and 2003 the absolute worst thing the US could have done was expand the war into a new theatre. That is exactly what Bush did by invading Iraq.

Saying Bush is fighting this war horribly is charitable. Hell the idiot is doing exactly what the enemy wants.