In comments to the previous post, Duncan Young writes:

The big difference is that in WWII the shape of victory was pretty damn clear - specific land was occupied, papers were publically signed, POW's turned over etc etc.

I've never heard a non-handwaving description of what 'winning' looks like in the War on Terror. Which is a bit of a problem with applying the whole 'war' paradigm to this case.

That's one of the problems with calling it a "War on Terror."

If we call it by its right name, a war on radical Islamic fundamentalism, then the victory conditions become more clear, if not entirely politically correct.

It means a Middle East (and other places) in which governments don't actively fund (or look the other way at) terrorist activities, in which imams in the mosques don't preach hate and death to the Jews and other infidels every Friday evening, with either active government support or acquiescence, in which madrassas, if they exist at all, teach a modern and reformed version of Islam. It may also include a prosperous and free Arab world, though unfortunately it need not if those other conditions can occur without it.

That's what victory looks like. How to achieve it is unclear, and worthy of debate, but many opponents of the war and the administration don't even seem to see that as a legitimate goal, let alone one to debate the means of getting there. The politically incorrect part is that it means committing "culturicide," which is something that remains an anathema to the multi-culti cultists, to whom all is relative. And while it doesn't require genocide, it may indeed require killing many more people than we might desire, because there are some minds that won't be changed.

Certainly policies followed in the eighties and nineties (to which it sounds like Senator Kerry wants us to return) won't get us there. Whether or not the current policy will remains to be seen, but it's got a lot better prospects than prosecutions and diplomacy alone. There will be many more regime changes, by various means, before this war is over.

Thanks for the reply.
How to achieve it is unclear, and worthy of debate... .
And therein is the 64 billion dollar question.
Is Renaissance-at-gunpoint possible? Given that the essential parameters of the problem are not milltary (eg world war) or economic (eg cold war), but cultural, it means that a global strategy is inherently difficult to conceive, and openly expressing it counterproductive.
Deliberate kulturekapf has never been terribly successful - especially when the targets know they are being kulturekapfed.
The Clinton foreign policy approach was a reliance on globalization; a philosophy where economics would sweep away 'petty' politics. This ran into two roadblocks in the Middle East - Iraqi sanctions and the failure of Oslo. It also inspired a backlash within the same domain: just as Reconstruction begat the KKK in the racial domain, as capitalism begat communism in the economic domain, as secularism begat fundamentalism in the theo-political domain, economic globalization begat global political terrorism.

Now I happen to think that elements of globalization are a neccessary part of the process - but it is important to recognise that the problem is wrapped up in the solution. September 11th was part of the process of engagment. It does not necessarily mean that the whole strategy was, long-term, hopeless.

Tom Bartlett had an interesting piece in the latest Esquire which had me alternatively groaning and nodding in agreement by turn. He writes like a bastard cross between Tom Freidman and Steven den Beste (thats the groaning part). His policy framing seemed to be a cross between armed engagement and globalization.

For the record I would have supported some sort of military engagment with Iraq if I thought the White House team were up to it. If Iraq succeeds, it will be despite this administration, not because of it, IMHO.

In other words, it's Friday, and I need a beer.

Hell kill two birds with one stone. Practice globalization and get that Friday beer by visiting a brew pub that serves over 100 kinds of beer from all over the world.

I was totally turned off to George Bush by one of his own Ads on TV the other day. The one that talks about how so very evil Kerry was because he would most certainly work to get rid of the Patriot act which allows law enforcement to use the same types of tactics in the 'War on Drugs' and apply them to the newfound 'War on Terror'. I almost strained my throat with a rapturing guffaw. Looks like I'll be voting for Nader again this time around.

> Is Renaissance-at-gunpoint possible?

The Islamists think so. It may even be part of their scripture.

What? We're not supposed to notice that it works both ways?

Well, a comparison could be made with the War on Piracy, which lasted from the late 17th Century until well into the 19th Century. In the end there were no pirates in the Western world. And, no, they didn't take prisoners to exchange.