What does winning the 'War on Terror' really mean...

[jhrobbins]

and what would it look like. The Republicans (and I guess a number of Democrats), even now keep the tattoo going of we must win the war on terror, but they are stupid or liars if they believe that this is even remotely possible. We could bomb Iraq back to the stone age (to use a quaint phrase) and it still would not achieve 'mission accomplished'. I really don't believe that GWB understands this, but there are surely people in the administration that must know that there are no central governments or national boundaries in the contretemps - so how can it be won?

[MichiganVote]

1. It means no cost access to oil by and for the oil companies

with the US footing the bill both in terms of military support and oil subsidies and payments at the pump. That's the Bush mission and it ain't accomplished yet.

[Strelnikov_]

23. Yep. The 'War On Terror' Is About Oil

Specifically, Peak Oil.

(Recycled screed follows)

The purpose of the 'War On Terror' and all of its subsidiaries are related to Peak Oil as follows:

- By maintaining a constant state of tension, high petroleum prices can be explained away as a temporary spike due to politics. This way, the publics attention can kept from the accelerating supply problems worldwide, thus preventing them from starting to make other arrangements for a post-carbon world (they can't have the addicts kicking too soon).

- Whoever controls the remaining (cheap) petroleum reserves stands to make a fortune in the years immediately following the peak of production. Even the most optimistic scenarios indicate it would take twenty years to mitigate the loss of petroleum production following peak. During this period of transition, the 'addicts' will have no choice but to pay, and pay, and pay.

- Nearly 70% of the worlds remaining petroleum and 40% of natural gas reserves are located in the Middle East. If we throw in the Caspian Region, which is predominately Muslim, we probably approach 80%/60% of remaining reserves in predominately Muslim regions.

The demonization of Muslims to raise ‘fear of the other’ to a high state is needed to desensitize the public to the wars of aggression and carnage required to seize and/or maintain hegemony over these resources.

Cheney as much acknowledged that peak will occur in the latter part of this decade at a speech in 1999 when he was still an 'official' oilman. Yet the Reich-wing media and echo chamber spouts the party line that additional supplies will come on line. All one has to do is read about the wildly exaggerated EIA estimates to know that the facts are being covered up.

The peaking of worldwide conventional (high EROEI) petroleum is real, and will probably occur within the next few years. During the initial 10 yrs.+ following peak oil, petroleum will still be readily available. But with demand chronically outstripping supply, prices will go through the roof, and the profits for those selling the oil will be massive.

And if this bunch did not believe Peak Oil is looming, why are they throwing money at highly risky resources such as Russia (nationalization), Deep-Water and Artic (mother nature, limits of technology, limited net energy).

Consider the following statement:

From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously - and I'll talk a little later on about gas - for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you've got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is as true for companies as well in the broader economic sense it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It's like making one hundred per cent interest; discovering another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year. For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world often greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow..

- Cheney At London Institute of Petroleum, 1999

Puts a whole new spin on the Cheney 'Energy' task force, doesn't it.


Following is an article that sums up the peak oil/WOT link. I do not necessarily agree with all of the points, but I feel it provides a decent big picture view.

Energy Depletion And The US Descent Into Fascism
http://www.mountainsentinel.com/#energyfascism


Following is an older article that sums up the motives of ‘Big Oil’ and their Quislings in politics regarding the NOC’s.

Crude Dudes
The Toronto Star
Sep. 20, 2004

http://www.energybulletin.net/2156.html

. . .

Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn't a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. "We can't just go over and ... occupy (Russian) oil fields," says Gheit. "It's a different ballgame." Iraq, however, was defenceless, utterly lacking, ironically, in weapons of mass destruction. And its location, nestled in between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that."

. . .

One reason that regime change in Iraq was seen as offering significant benefits for Big Oil was that it promised to open up a treasure chest which had long been sealed — private ownership of Middle Eastern oil. A small group of major international oil companies once privately owned the oil industries of the Middle East. But that changed in the 1970s when most Middle Eastern countries (and some elsewhere) nationalized their oil industries. Today, state-owned companies control the vast majority of the world's oil resources. The major international oil companies control a mere 4 per cent.

The majors have clearly prospered in the new era, as developers rather than owners, but there's little doubt that they'd prefer to regain ownership of the oil world's Garden of Eden. "(O)ne of the goals of the oil companies and the Western powers is to weaken and/or privatize the world's state oil companies," observes New York-based economist Michael Tanzer, who advises Third World governments on energy issues.

. . .

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. The war on terror must be fought in the minds of men, cuz that's

where it starts and stops.

[Spazito]

3. It means stopping countries from selling their oil in Euros

instead of petro-dollars because if the Euro becomes the world currency, the whole house of cards that is the US economy will collapse, imo.

[bluewave]

4. Means the GOP holding the Congress and Presidency for a long time

They failed, thank God.

[madeline_con]

5. This is not something that the average reasonable person can

wrap their head around. This is a plot to control the world's petroleum wealth at all costs, while making a relatively small group rich in the process.

If you look at the overall picture of Asia, Africa and South America, the U.S. is in the process of imperialistically controlling ALL of it.

[Gregorian]

An excuse for perpetual military aggression.

I've run out of patience. I am finding it exceedingly difficult to pay attention to boneheads like O'Reilly and Bush. Total fucking empty shells. Reckless, careless, unempathetic idiots. And we are footing their bill and paying the emotional price.

[shadowknows69]

6. Killing anybody that doesn't want to be part of the new American Empire?

n/t

[Bucky]

7. 1st, invade the land of Terror, defeat Terror's army, then the President of Terror surrenders.

"But Bucky, you're talking absolute nonsense."

Ah, now you see my point. You can't go to war against a tactic. Our war is with the international brigands of al-Qaeda and their growing number of affiliates. If in that process you happen to aid al-Qaeda in increasing its number of recruits, then you are losing. They had 20,000 affiliated troops in 2001 and they have about 50,000 today, so you decide.

[graywarrior]

11. I LOVE your signature!

[napi21]

8. The term is wrong! You can't have a war on a tactic!

That term is nothing more than a phrase that succeeded in opinion polls!

The real problem is radical fundimentalists world wide! That means the US too! Remember Tim McVeigh? I'm mot sure there IS a way to protect people from their terrorist methods. People like this are willing to die for their cause, and have been for centuries. IF the islamic fundimentalists really do only want foreighners out of their Holy Land, I sayget the hell out! We don't have any right to be there anyway. I wouldn't worry about oil. That's how these contries generate most of their income, and to fear that they'd stop selling oil is just foolish.

Shrub would abviously disagree with me because not only would he have to admit to a loss, but his buddies would loose all that $$ from their war profiteering!

We are in the middle of a religious war in the ME, and that's something that we can NEVER win, but actually fuel just by being there.

[kentuck]

9. It means that the situation in Iraq improves enough for Bush to withdraw...

..the troops and declare a victory in the "war on terror" - even though Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror when he invaded.

[havocmom]

10. Money in the bank for a lot of very big corporations

and terror for the rest of us and the world.

[two gun sid]

12. It has no meaning.

[mtnsnake]

13. The GOP doesn't want to win the war on terror. They want to perpetuate it.

The war on terror as it exists today won't be won by either side. Someday, when smarter, cooler heads prevail, the war on terror will be stopped by both sides.

For the time being, the war on terror is the GOP's greatest tool in winning elections on the local and national level. Without the ability to play on peoples' fears, the GOP is fried and they know it.

[SanCristobal]

14. It means a Middle East governed by democracies.

The whole war on terror is based on the neocon idea that a democratic Middle East will end the grass roots support for terrorism found in Arab/Muslim culture. Representative governments won't be able to use the US/Israel as a scapegoat for their failing as current Arab regimes do, and will be forced to actually solve domestic problems and thus create better living standards for the region. Newly prosperous people won't turn to aggression and radical religion as a means of empowerment, or so the theory goes.

[Spazito]

16. ROFLMAO! (You were being facetious, right?)

In case you weren't, reading the PNAC manifesto might be worthwhile:

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?"

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[SanCristobal]

27. I'm pretty familar with PNAC and neoconservatism.

I stand by my post. There were plenty of things we could have done in response to 9/11; we could have bombed Afghanistan without attempts at regime change, we could have skipped any military response and just stepped up law enforcement efforts. The war on terror is essentially a neoconservative war, completely shaped by their ideology.

As explained in the PNAC excerpt you posted, the neocons are concerned first and foremost with preserving US global hegemony. Their recipe for this is a strong US military and foreign policy promoting global democratization, the idea being that democracies are natural US allies (and small democratic states are often militarily weak, leaving less competition for the US).

The neocon solution to radical Islamic terrorism is the democratization of the Middle East. The means to achieve this is supposed to be the war in Iraq. The Iraq war will (maybe) establish a stable and prosperous democracy, which will supposedly cause a wave a democratic reform that leads to the collapse of the regions numerous anti-American and authoritarian governments as well as providing better lives for people who will no longer turn to radical Islam for empowerment.

It sounds good in theory (or doesn't, depending on whether or not you subscribe to the Weekly Standard), but has proved much more difficult in practice then in planning. As it turns out, democracies aren't natural US allies, as proved by the reluctance of the global democratic community to support the war. It seems Muslims like their radical religion a bit better then expected as well, and the chaos that has created in Iraq has more or less killed the wave of reform momentum.

EDIT: Neocons always make me think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxxcGuXYbEU

[Spazito]

28. I beg to differ....

"The neocon solution to radical Islamic terrorism is the democratization of the Middle East."

The neocons and the bush cabal have little interest in "democratizing" anywhere, they are solely interested in assuring American interests are protected, they could care less what the model of governance is as long as those in power in the Middle East kowtow to American interests.

The neocons and the bush cabal wanted Saddam out long before the so-called "radical Islamic terrorism", they wanted him out when he no longer was kowtowing to them, it is as simple as that.

It seems you have fallen for right wing meme that Iraq was connected to Islamic terrorism and, therefore, connected to 9/11.

[SanCristobal]

33. I somewhat agree.

Their primary goal is US global hegemony. In this case, their means to that end is democracy.

As a policy school, neoconservatism can be seen a particularly ideological form of realism with slight liberal* influences. They see the world as a dog eat dog system, and are most concerned with keeping the US at the head of the pack. Unlike traditional realism, they value the cooperation of the international system to some degree, but only as far as it advances US interests. Realists believe international treaties and laws will never truly work, and liberals put total faith in those systems. Neocons are a blend of the two, they believe that other nations will accept the system of US dominance (and therefore agknowledge the possibility of international cooperation), but don't believe that the US should be constrained by the rules it sets for its lesser brethren (and therefore accept the realist view that such constraints are inappropriate for national interests).

As an ideology, neoconservatism is a fascinating concept to study. Then again, Nazism makes a fascinating classroom study. That doesn't mean it should have ever been applied to the real world.

* by liberal I refer to the political school of thought that maintains the international system is based on rule of law, not American liberalism/progressivism. Some people call it internationalism.

[Spazito]

34. You make some good points but I don't agree with

your realist versus liberal description. Realists know no system is perfect but do not let that stop them from cooperating in international treaties and working on instituting laws that work toward that which will address the problems. Liberals do believe in systems based on rule of law, fairness and equity but those who believe in liberalism can also be realists, the two are not mutually exclusive nor can one classify a realistic liberal as a neocon.

The neocons believe only in that which serves their own interests and will do whatever will take them closer to their own goals regardless of the cost to all others.

[SanCristobal]

38. I did write a pretty hard line description of

realism vs liberalism. Your right that real world examples are usually not so black and white.

I didn't mean to imply that neoconservatism was the only middle ground between the two schools. My point is that the concept draws elements from both of them, then reshapes those theories for its own ideological purpose.

[Djinn]

36. democracy is absolutely NOT the means

Neo-con pronouncements about furthering democracy are nothing more than the publically acceptable veneer placed over imperial actions.

If the Neo-cons were big on democracy Allende, Roldos and Torrijos may still be alive and Chavez could sleep a little easier.

The War on Terror (abbreviated TWAT which is kinda apt) is simply the latest fig leaf to justify imperialism and neo-colonialism. It is FAR broader than simply oil. Oil is a very valuable resource so naturally it features in neo-con plans regularly but it is not simply oil they're out to control.

Also like to point out that needing a veneer for the expansion of empire is NOT a neo-con invention and is absolutely NOT the sole preserve of Republicans. Does anyone REALLY believe that under a Dem admin that a TRULY democratic Iraqi government will ever be allowed to exist? Does anyone REALLY believe that Democrats will allow Iraqis to control their own resources? Does anyone really think that a Dem admin will cancel all the kleptocratic and illegal contracts Iraq was locked into in the first days of the occupation?

Once it was the fear of anarchits, then communists, then drug cartels, now it's "terror".

[blues90]

15. To me it always meant an open stance

TO go anywhere determined to be a terrorist so the US could use pre-emtive attacks to secure what ever resourse they desire meaning oil .

Since terrorism has no country what else could the term actually mean ?

[sammythecat]

17. We will never win a "war on terror" just as

we will never win a "war on crime". These things will never be stopped by any "war". "War" may subdue it, temporarily, but "war" will never defeat it.

They have been with us from the beginning. The only reason terror has become prominent is because technology has made it relatively easy to accomplish. C4 and remote control are two examples.

If, or when, we ever become better as a species, that will be when crime and terror will wither, not before.

[MN ChimpH8R]

18. It means nothing

The very concept of a "war on terror" is so objectively ridiculous and meaningless as to defy comprehension. "Terror" is a tactic, not a strategy or an ideology. It is always used in an asymmetric way.

One need only be a highly motivated/religiously insane malcontent to plant a bomb in the fashion of the London subway bombers. Those individuals were conclusively determined to be unaffiliated with anyone outside their own group. They were not tied to al-Qaeda, they were simply religiously insane soreheads who dreamed up their plot and executed it.

There is no way to prevent such actions. It is impossible. There will always be motivated/religiously insane people who view any means as an acceptable way to pursue their lunatic ends. To declare "war" on people such as them is like calling for ghosts to be banished from the law or declaring war on the tactic of blitzkrieg instead of Hitler's Germany.

As for organized militant groups, John Kerry and the Brits have figured out that it is intelligence and law enforcement efforts directed at likely individuals and groups, not mass surveillance, that can most effectively crack such organizations.

Using the conventional military against "terror" is as useless as trying to chop down a tree with a broom. The tool in use is utterly unsuited to the task at hand.

Mainly, the Chimperor's "War on Terror" was an excuse to put into place the all-powerful, unaccountable fascist state that the American far right has been wet-dreaming about since they first set their envious eyes on their heroes Benito and Adolf.

[Pachamama]

19. Outspending the Terrorists?

:shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

20. Well, since no one ever really asks the RWers to answer this point blank, they don't have to define

it, do they?

[frogcycle]

21. well of course it is a completely meaningless expression

"terror" is an emotion. It is a state of mind. That emotion will always exist. kids will be afraid of things that go bump in the night.

"Terrorists" bring it about by convincing people they are at risk. "Terrorism" is a tactic used to influence people - you scare them into doing what you want. The terrorism used on 9/11 has on the one hand been grossly unsuccessful, since masses of Americans have not converted to Wahabi Islam, nor did we pack our bags and leave the mideast. On the other hand, it has been wildly successful, since it baited our president into adventurism that has further eroded our international standing. The president's use of terrorism has been wildly successful, since it has given him pretty much carte blanche to invade, despoil, enrich his cronies, and cancel the Bill of Rights. So it depends what the short- and long-term goals of the attack were to evaluate its success to date.

The "war on terror" is the oxymoron of all oxymorons. If it were to be successful, it would defeat itself, since it itself employs terrorism as its primary means of execution.

If it were to be "won" then we would all be cowering in fear of Big Brother, in the ultimate terrorist state. Which would mean it had not been won.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. About the same as "Remember the Alamo". Or, "Falling dominoes".

Which gave the peace-loving USA a chance to wage wars and, in the first instance, make a monumental land grab.

[stansnark]

24. a peace dividend ? remember that one ?

how did that work out ?

[TheCentepedeShoes]

25. Nothing and Bushco knows it

Terrorism is a tactic and there have been/will always be someone fanatical/nutty/determined enough to use it. The Klan after the Civil War had their agenda, other groups have had theirs. It works better today due to 24/7 snooze coverage which makes everything seem like it's happening on your street and is about to come right into your own living room. It's the making of demons out of Middle Easterners who they (Bushco) say are "threatening our way of life," er, threatening our supply of OIL. It's designed to scare the fundies into thinking that hordes of swarthy, saber-wielding horsemen are going to descend on the First Baptist Church of XXX.
I fear for the Cubans after Castro goes to, well, wherever he passes on to.
Cuba supposedly has OIL. Plus lots of nice lush land.
...---... Ladies and Gents, and all the ships at sea: Flash! Mr Dillon, his lovely wife Kitty and their two sons Abner and Jethro were lost at sea today when their motorboat "Maine" was attacked in the Florida Straits.....

[eagler]

26. we're fighting it right here

nt

[bdamomma]

29. the only people who are "winning" are the Terrorists or should

I say Osama, who is just sitting back and watching the disintegration of America. George is Osama's wet dream.

[WinkyDink]

30. It means FASCISM HERE and THEFT THERE.

[walldude]

31. It means keeping the military industrial complex

in serious money indefinitely. They needed a non-stop war, not a domestic war like the war on drugs but a war they know they can never win, so they can keep dumping 57% of my tax money into defense. Defending me. Thats a laugh...

[oblivious]

32. Winning the war means the end of the gravy train, so it can never be won.

[EFerrari]

35. Bingo.

[Bobbie Jo]

37. It means a blank check and an unconditional authority

for * to wage his war where ever he sees fit.