Quote:
Originally posted by sigtau305
Winnable? no, not really. Bin-Laden and most of his Al-Quida Buddies has yet to be captured.
|
I'm not 100% sure how you define "most" - but many reports list nearly all of the top brass from al Qaeda as being captured or killed. Obviously bin Laden is still at large, but it seems like inroads have been made to 'cut the head' of the hydra . . .
. . . however this doesn't really help immensely, as most terror organizations rely on the self-sufficient, independently-operating 'cell' concept to function.
Is the war 'winnable' in the sense of eliminating terrorism? No, in much the same way as the war on meteorology can never be 'won' in the sense of accurately predicting the weather for every day. Note that this is a truly terrible metaphor, but i'm going somewhere, i promise.
Anyway - the 'war on terror' should more accurately be measured in the likelihood and severity of future attacks. Please note that while the Iraq situation is a part of this war, it is not for direct reasons - I'll contend (and Russ can prop this up better) that the Iraq war is a push to stabilize the region and dislodge the environments that support terrorist groups.
Thus, the ultimate test of the war on terror, as it goes in Iraq, will be measured in any stabilization that occurs in the region over the longterm.