War on terror never going away, top Army chief says

[Scooter24]

WASHINGTON - What we have today is not your father's Army and that's a good thing, because we are living in what Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker calls "the most dangerous time in my memory," and his memory as Army brat and as Army officer goes back half a century and more.

"Our past wars were like having pneumonia - you may end up with some scarring in your lungs but you survived," Schoomaker told a Defense Writers Group breakfast. "This one (the Global War on Terrorism) is like cancer; you might get it in remission, but you will live with it for a lifetime. It is huge. We face a very challenging future."

Schoomaker, a veteran of many years' service in Special Forces and the super-secret Delta Force who was brought out of retirement to run the Army, said: "This war cannot be won militarily. The gun will not win this one. This is a clash of ideas, an information war."

The general is a first-class rodeo cowboy roper and the first chief in history to install a metal roping bull behind the chief's official residence, Quarters One at Fort Myer, Va. He carries a lariat in his pickup and hums along with his favorite country singers, Chris LeDoux and George Strait.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/special_packages/iraq/8937124.htm

[wildmanj]

1. war on terror

just what the @@@@ we need--more cowboy hats, cowboy boots, and empty heads----get a life general

[flewellyn]

2. His memory must not be very long...

I can think of at least half a dozen times in our history that have been at least as dangerous, if not more so, to this nation. A list, with explanation, where necessary, as to my reasoning:

1. War of 1812: The British took Washington, which is always glossed over in our history books, probably out of embarassment. They took Washington, and burned down the President's residence, which wasn't called the White House until afterwards (they had to paint it white to cover the soot stains). Sure, taking Washington didn't finish the US, but the British were more than capable of taking the other state capitols, with sufficient time. And this time, we wouldn't have the French to bail us out, since the Treaty of Paris was no longer meaningful (the French government that had signed it no longer existed). We would have lost had the British not become distracted by that little matter of Napoleon trying to take over all of Europe.

2. Civil War: None of the European powers intervened in this conflict, but they were very close to doing so; had Grant not won at Antietam, it's very likely that the British, French, or Prussians would have intervened on the side of the Confederacy. The Confederacy, and not the Union, because the South was their source of cotton, and the embargo imposed by the Union was hurting the European textile industry. Also, the Union was a growing industrial power, and thus a competitor. Had any of the European powers chosen to intervene, the Union would have lost.

3. Great Depression: This was not a military threat, but an economic and political one. We faced the same dire circustances that Germany had a few years before, which had driven them into the arms of the Nazi party. With widespread economic collapse, the US was ripe for a fascist takeover. We were very very lucky that Roosevelt kept to the Constitution as closely as he did; some might argue with his "court packing" strategy, but adding justices to the Supreme Court to keep them from overturning his economic initiatives is a far cry from, say, declaring martial law and suspending the Constitution.

4. World War II: I don't think I need to explain this one. Except, possibly, to say that we were very lucky we invented nuclear weapons before Germany could.

5. Korean War: We were dangerously close to pushing China into entering the war directly, which would have been a really really REALLY bad idea. If China had entered, then Russia would likely have as well, and having two nuclear powers fight each other is not a good idea, especially with Stalin still in charge of the USSR. Had Truman not reigned in MacArthur, preventing him from invading China, things could have gotten very ugly.

6. Cuban Missile Crisis: Again, this one is pretty self-explanatory. With Strategic Air Command fully activated, with orders to strike ALL viable nuclear targets should we engage, full nuclear war was the inevitable outcome if Kennedy couldn't convince Kruschev to pull the missiles out of Cuba.

See? At least 6 times in the history of the US, we've barely scraped past being annihilated as a democratic nation, either through force of arms or political coup. Compared to some of these threats, Al-Quaeda doesn't even register; they can damage our buildings and transportation, kill our people, and scare the bejeezus out of us, but they don't have the ability to destroy us utterly. Only we do.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Good analysis

but Grant wasn't in charge of the Army of the Potomac at Antietem. He was still in the West with the Army of the Tennessee.

[flewellyn]

6. Thanks.

I had forgotten that.

[Baltimoreboy]

11. You would be wrong in most of those cases

1. War of 1812 -- Wouldn't have meant the loss of millions of lives.

2. Civil War -- Yeah, the Civil War was horrible, but it ended. Terror likely never will.

3. Great Depression -- Again, not as bad as the threat and likely reality that terrorists get nukes and blow up a city or two.

4. World War II -- Agree.

5. Korean War -- China still wasn't the threat because we could have gone nuclear. Yes, that's horrible, but it also could have kept them in line.

6. Cuban Missile Crisis -- Agree. Total nuclear war is worse.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. A minor problem with your analysis is that prior to the...

...development of the suitcase nuke (Soviets) and the backpack nuke (U. S.), nobody has had the ability to travel to a foreign country and blow themselves and a foreign city to smithereens. It appears that a number of the suitcase nukes are missing and believed to have been sold on the Black Market to persons or groups unknown.

Someone else pointed out that Grant was not in charge of the Union Army at Antietam...it was McClellan. Additionally, Antietam is generally believed that tactically the battle was a draw due primarily to McClellan's inept battlefield decision-making ability. From a strategic perspective, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was forced to withdraw back into Virginia.

As far as the Cuban Missile Crisis is concerned, it has been noted in recent years that the Soviets lacked the ability to reach the U. S. by ICBM. None of their ICBMs at that time were capable of hitting the U. S. from the Soviet Union. But, they did have some missiles located in Cuba that could have certainly done some major damage had they been allowed to get off the ground.

[flewellyn]

3. Gah, please delete duplicate.

Don't know why the post system keeps hiccuping...

[rock]

4. Well then, I guess the general has a job for life

Wait, that could mean he's biased. Nah, I guess not.

[anarchy1999]

7. Just shoot me or let me leave this country behind. I've had enough.

Please, Chris LeDoux and George Strait. A lariat, a pickup and a metal roping bull......

WTF!!

"We face a very challenging future."

No shit, Sherlock!! Thanks to you and the rest who supported this insane military industrial build up. Halliburton and DynCorp here we come, along with the draft of all our kids. FU, dear sir. And no, I will not live with your "war for a lifetime", I've already lived it for a lifetime and I say no more and I will not give your world to my daughter.

On edit: I SAY NO MORE WAR! It is just not necessary.

[Scooter24]

8. LOL n/t

[Baltimoreboy]

12. Tell that to the guys who flew those planes

No more war works only if both sides agree.

[anarchy1999]

13. Dear Baltimoreboy, I thought you were already gone.

Maybe this time........

Just for the sake of arguement, which side should step up first? I think it should be the US.

And just by the way, who were those guys that flew those planes?

[Baltimoreboy]

14. Why would I be gone? Because I think it takes two sides to make peace?

Seems a historical fact.

And, personally, I think Islamic fanatics flew those planes. No MIHOP for this boy.

As for which side should step up first, if your opponents have declared you must convert or die (Osama's rant, not mine) then you can't step up the way you propose. Not with his group.

[Deja Q]

9. Malcontents will always exist. This crackpot just wants to depopulate

the world of people who don't like the US's capitalism-gone-wild antics and exploitation.

[Disturbed]

10. A War of Ideas

Yes, that is much better than killing people &/or maiming them. Do we need a military draft for that idea?

Here's some goofy ideas: Spend money making people's lives in the ME better instead of bombing them. Show them that the Dictatorships that the US now supports aren't going to be supported anymore. Stop "abusing" and torturing people. Spend the money on Health Care, Job creation, infrastructure,Education and other programs that help the less fortunate in American and around the world instead of on the freakin' Military Industrial Complex.

[LittleApple81]

15. It will stop when there is no more money for the Defense Contractors

to steal.

[leesa]

16. What crap! A total bogus invention of madmen is what the fake "war

on terror" is. Soley designed to continue the cold war practice of stealing resources, selling arms and overthrowing any government we choose.

[Baltimoreboy]

17. Seriously, why do you consider it a fake war?

It seems clear that there is a lot of terrorism in the world. And, unlike the stupid ass war on drugs, there is a definite downside to terrorism getting through.

[Nlighten1]

21. Terrorism is a response to ...

social and economic injustice. And the US is, by far, the chief exporter of social and economic injustice in the world.

[Baltimoreboy]

25. Sounds like you are making excuses

There are no excuses for terrorism.

[Nlighten1]

26. I'm not making excuses.

I am approaching the subject from reality. The reality of this situation is that we are at war with an oppressed people. You will not win this war by dropping bombs on them because "they" have nothing to lose while "we" have everything to lose.

[Baltimoreboy]

28. Everyone living has something to lose

Homes, family and their very lives.

Any one solution to a problem this complex -- whether it's military or peaceful -- is likely insufficient.

[Az]

35. Right and wrong are defined by your culture

When another culture invades your's you will see their actions as evil. If they overwhelm your cultures military ability to deal with the assault terrorism becomes the only viable means of defending your culture.

[Baltimoreboy]

36. Here I disagree

There are some pretty clear rights and wrongs in the world. Not just culturally defined.

[Az]

37. Ok, Spell them out

Let us see what culture and society will permit when under attack.

[Baltimoreboy]

38. How about infant rape?

I think that is a universal cultural bad. And if any nation practices it, they are still permitting an evil.

[Az]

41. Perhaps we should focus on matters that are more likely to be devisive

Such as what a culture will do to defend itself. Infant rape is not exactly a first line tactic for assaling another culture. In fact this is probably dealing more with a neurological issue than a cultural one.

I am speaking to how a culture will defend itself and what it will see as permissible in such a cause. Consider the American terror war against the native Americans. All manner of horrors were seen as permissible in this action. From scalping to biological warfare. Rape and eradication were the tactic of the day.

A culture will do what it has to to survive. It defines the oppressor as evil and from here it is a short step to dehumanise the enemy. All ethics and morals are lifted in that case and true horrors can be unleashed. When cultures clash it becomes survival of the fittest. And Social Darwinism is an ugly thing. People like to say life is a beautiful thing. But a casual glance at nature shows brutality and violence on a daily basis.

[Baltimoreboy]

43. Before we go further

Are we talking any time in history or just now? Because citing a war against Indians is much like citing a war against Mongol invaders. It is history not current events.

[Az]

44. I assume we are looking at the nature of societies and culture

Specifically their natures in how they deal with invasion and oppression. My supposition being that individuals tend to do what they believe is right or good. And their notions of right and good are defined in large part by the cultures they find themself in. If that culture comes under assault by definition the attacking group is evil. In battling evil most societies and cultures give great leeway in what is allowed. Particularly if you believe the attackers to be inherently evil or inhuman.

As such this discussion can include both history and current events for comparison.

[Baltimoreboy]

46. The problem with that

Is nations and attitudes change drastically over time.

[Az]

48. Of course

Culture and society are always changing. But the thing is the change comes from within. When change is forced from the outside all the defensive aspects of society kick in. And it is this issue that IMO is the focus of the problem. We cannot force another culture to change.

We can work to encourage the change already occurring within a society but we cannot force uncalled for changes within their society. Until they are looking for it we cannot offer it.

[silverpatronus]

50. to see the cause of something...

is not to excuse it's existence or occurrence. terrorists are scum, their conduct is inexcusable. anyone who would kill the innocent to punish the guilty is on their way to a real hot spot in hell. but you have to acknowledge that these scum are made, not born. the world can't bury its head in the sand and just say 'terrorists are evil'. we must fight terrorism in a way that will actually work. it IS a 'hearts and minds' (*gag*, shrubco has made it almost impossible for me to utter that phrase ever again) thing. terrorists are like cockroaches: kill one, a thousand more appear; remove the conditions under which they thrive and they vanish.

[Az]

18. Permenant war on terror is a self fullfilling prophecy

Using violence to stop the violent resistance of cultural encroachment is a naturally self generating cycle. When a people do not want to have their culture ripped from them by an invading culture they will resist however they can. When the invading culture is militarily superior the only resort left to them is terrorism. They cannot stand toe to toe with a superior military force. They can go underground and make them pay until the will to force their way is spent.

The trouble is of course that the more the military squeezes the more people flock to join to opposition. Overwhelming military force is terror. It is far more terror than the killing of a few here and there. It is the implicit threat that their entire society can be eliminated if they displease us as a people.

Terrorism is not ended with violence. Its the wrong tool. It is ended with diplomacy and containment. If it is recognised that a society does not wish to have their culture replaced then it may be necissary to back off. If the culture is toxic in the world at large then it must be sealed off and allowed to develop into something positive on its own. Some guidance can be applied but force cannot be used to change people's minds.

[Baltimoreboy]

19. I agree in part

Violence alone just doesn't work. But you can't ignore terrorists and just let them continue their efforts either.

It needs to be a widespread effort.

However, in a world of global economy and global information, how do you "back off" from another culture? I don't think you can. America will continue to export everything from religion to pornography and that is bound to piss off your average Muslim extremist.

[Az]

23. Its very difficult

You have to use all the tools available. You have to defend society at large from actual terrorist attacks which implies violence. But going directly to the nation and attempting to force a societal change is a sure fire recipe for an increase in terrorism.

You have to lead the culture to new ideas. They have to deal with the radical elements within them theirself. If we impose the impetus to change them it will simply result in an increase in the resistance.

We are facing the very same problem here in the US. Our own radical religious right has decided to dig its heals in and resist progress. It is turning its back on society and preparing to do what damage to it it can. The Southern Baptists are going to try to destroy the public education system because it is not teaching the truth that they want. We are not going to be able to force them to change their mind by violence or oppression.

If a people do not want our definition of progress then it will not be had. A society only can move forward when there is a basic agreement that this is what it desires.

[Baltimoreboy]

24. Progress

The problem is how you define progress. I would be a fool to claim everything about our society represents that word accurately.

The problem we have is that many view our definition poorly -- both in our own nation and elsewhere. Here we have a culture war, but it is largely peaceful. But elsewhere that war is not so peaceful. If those who don't want women to have rights, for instance, attack those who do, you can't keep this a friendly situation.

[Az]

29. Agreed but

Tinkering with another culture is very very difficult. We have to understand the limitations of the tools we have available. Our intentions may be excellent but our reach is limited.

Violence is an effective tool against political structures. They require organisation and can be disrupted to a point where they no longer function. But the problem with using violence to solve a cultural problem is that instead of attempting to disrupt a governmental structure you are attempting to disrupt people. It simply doesn't work. You can shoot and kill individuals but the cultural position will remain. It is not a structure that can be torn down like a statue. It would be like attacking the vatican to destroy Catholicism.

If you mean to disrupt a social structure you need to use weapons tailored for them. Violence is a very poor weapon of choice for this sort of task. This does not mean you stand back and let the terrorists run wild. But using violence on the scale we are is simply pouring fuel on the fire.

[Baltimoreboy]

31. We aren't too far apart

Violence also works against military infrastructure and terrorists fall under that heading.

As for disrupting a social infrastructure, I think we do that every day both accidentally and deliberately. That's one of the reasons we have terror.

[Scooter24]

27. So what are you advocating?

The need for us to "Americanize" the entire Middle Eastern region? The problem in these types of wars is that this administration believes that a terrorist cell and an individual government are in tandem. Now why did we invade Iraq again? To free ourselves of terrorists? Oh wait..It was all about the Iraqi people.

Furthermore, I'm not saying Iraq was a problem. I am saying though it wasn't an immediate problem that needed a war to solve it. This whole war was sparked by 9-11, yet the person who planned that war is still free. We have a crisis in Sudan that has been going on for years and grows bigger daily. We have North Korea trying to establish a nuclear program. We have China and Taiwan at each others necks. We have India and Pakistan also at each other necks. There is Isreal and Palestine who are on the brink of all-out war. Yet, instead of adressing other serious global concerns, we go and take Saddam out of power. What's ironic though, is that the world has yet to improve from our actions. We might have taken out Saddam, but the terror level is just as strong as it was before the war had started.

[Baltimoreboy]

30. A multi-pronged approach and even that can't work entirely

However, that won't work completely. As long as there are people who oppose some of the basic tenets of our society -- freedom of religion is just one example -- then we will have terror.

The rest of your list:

* Iraq, yes it wasn't as serious a problem as it has become.
* How does the crisis in the Sudan impact us? (It's a humanitarian catastrophe. I agree. That's not what I asked.)
* I think North Korea has already established nuclear weapons. What do you propose?
* China and Taiwan are always at each other's throats.
* India and Pakistan seemed to be moving away from the brink.

[Bridget Burke]

20. "Terror" will not just go away.

But calling the fight against it a "War" will encourage new Terrorists.

It will also feed the Military Industrial Complex--so I can see the (retired) General's point.

[kentuck]

32. Oh, Happy Day !

Something to look forward to....the war tomorrow will be worse than the war today. Is there another answer? Can we get a second opinion? Does someone know another way out of this maze?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. There's no such thing as "terrorism"

Terror is not an ideology but a tactic used by fanatics of all persuasions.

Suppose you killed all the Islamic militants, assuming that this was even possible. Because that's what they're really talking about, a war against Islamic militants, those people who come from a cultural tradition with literally billions of adherents and a strong culture of revenge and honor. Why, with everyone avenging their father, brother, son, cousin, whatever, you have a hawkish general's wet dream: an endless supply of enemies who cause just enough damage to scare the general public into supporting military buildups unquestioningly.

What a racket! All the hawks have to say is "war on terrorism," and the poor, ignorant, trembling fools, not realizing that they have an infinitely greater chance of dying in a highway crash than being blown up by a terrorist, will run weeping to any candidate who promises to give the generals more toys to play with and more wars to play in.

Wake up, America! You're headed down the road that Argentina and Uruguay took in the 1970s, when the people there gave up all their political freedoms because "terrorists" had killed a couple dozen people.

Anyone who says, "We've got to win the war on terrorism" has swallowed one of the biggest propaganda pills out there and needs to look at what the real threats are: environmental catastrophes, mostly.

[MadHound]

34. Oh boy, just when the peace dividend should be kicking in

We have a whole other war on a noun(or idea if you like). Just when the military industrial complex was starting to panic since there was no more Cold War to profit from, here comes another, never ending war to make the wealthy even more obscenely rich off the blood of others.

To end terrorists threats in the world, one must respond with justice, not war. Most people, even the radicals in the ME, have come to accept the fact of Israeli existence and that it is not going away. However, Israel must be reigned in, with it's borders re-established to the pre-'67 boundaries, and its policies adapted to the concept of getting along with it's neighbors, not occupying them. A Palestinian state must be created, and the US must balance out it's support and relief between the Palestinians and Israelis, and become an honest, evenhanded broker in the region. Also, arms manufacturers, both at home and abroad, must have their activities curtailed. The ongoing sale of arms to both sides of any conflict does nothing but promote death and destruction, both now and in the future. Also, the US must work with the developing countries to lift them up out of poverty and squalor. Finally, religious fanatics of all stripes must be reigned in and brought into the 21st century. Continuing to allow these people power in world affairs only promotes religious crusades on a scale never seen before.

But instead, we are going to continue with the same paradigmn that we have followed for the last sixty years. The warhawks will continue to pour money into political campaigns, insuring that their point of view will be the only one heard. The war saber will continue to be rattled, and the merchants of death will continue to make their obscene profits. One of the most effective tools that we can use is to make ALL political races, local, state and federal, publicly financed. Withdraw the element of money and you enable the candidates to be responsive to their one true consituency, the voters. Until this is done, the merchants of death will continue to buy their sock puppets an office so as they are able to continue to deal in death and make their share of blood money.

[Jose Diablo]

42. Interesting there is no real enemy

the perfect enemy, an vague terrorist.

No one to identify, but look at all the money that can spent.

I grow weary of paying for these parasites. The generals should obtain real jobs. Maybe at McDonald's flipping burgers. At least it would be a job that adds value to the rest of society.

Let me see if I got this right, first create an enemy by being basically a greedy fuck. Then after having this enemy, convince the population we need to defend against this enemy.

[bobthedrummer]

39. The "influence" of Leo Strauss again.

:grr:

[mmonk]

40. I don't care what anyone says

about their "war on terror" never going away. I'm never going away in that I will never give up the constitution, Bill of Rights, governmental checks and balances, etc. I'm a real patriot and real patriots will refuse until point of death to give these things up.

[TexasSissy]

45. George Soros warned of this in Columbia U commencement speech.

The speech was about Iraq, and he was giving commencement speech to graduates of International Law and/or Relations (so the topic made sense).

It was an outstanding speech. I'd never heard him before. But he made one statement to the effect that with a war on terrorism, where the enemy is invisible, it need never end (he means that's what the gov't will say for other reasons, to justify other things, for years to come). It can always be used as an excuse for things.

So true. It'll be hard discerning if it's correct, or not.

[mvd]

47. You can't fight terror like a traditional war

That seems to be what they are doing - land invasions and all. Peace underminds terror in the long run more than what we are doing ever would. In fact, we're creating more terror. Besides, this misdaministration is really after U.S. influence in other parts of the world, so that it helps their big donors.

[silverpatronus]

49. he's right on this part...

"This war cannot be won militarily. The gun will not win this one. This is a clash of ideas, an information war."

[midnight armadillo]

51. Let's put this in perspective

Terrorism to date has killed under 4000 Americans, and leveled three buildings (WTC & OKC building).

Let's compare this to say the US Civil War, which resulted in 970,000 casualties (combined union & confederate soldiers) when there was a US population of 34 million (2.8% of the population!!)

There were also who knows how many civilian deaths, and much of the South was laid to waste, e.g. Sherman's "March to the Sea."

To further consider how dangerous terrorism is, consider that in say 1999 41,000 people in the US died in car crashes.

So, in terms of psychological impact terrorism is big, but to date hasn't come close to the everyday dangers we face, much less the last true danger to the existence of the US, the Civil War.

"the most dangerous time in my memory," Bah humbug! Terrorism exists because desperate people have no hope, no future, and no political influence. It requires a social and political cure, but the military-industrial complex will milk it for every penny then can ad infinitum!