GWOT is back and back in a big way

[PaleRider]

The Global War on Terror has come roaring back this year, in a big and nasty way. Perhaps in no other time except in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and in the early 200's has the Western world been so under siege from radical Islam. Just recently we saw a well coordinated terror attack reek havoc across Paris and northern France, a major terror attack at a Sydney cafe in Australia and the battle against Boko Haram just took a deadlier turn, if that was even possible.
Since the dramatic rise of IS (or ISIS or ISIL depending on who you are) we have seen a massive rise in Islamic terror plots all across the world, especially in the Western world. Europe it seems is at the most danger though. From Sweden to Germany to France we are seeing a growing sense of fear and anger towards Islamic communities (best exemplified by the rise of the Swedish Democrats and the PEDIGA protests in Germany) and a potentially damaging reaction on the part of Islamists, especially those returning from fighting in Syria. And I'm already starting to see this debate, about relations with Muslims, to assimilation of immigrant communities to counter-terrorism and internal security, come over to the US as many citizens here seem worried about what's going on over there. How can we deal with this issue? For me, IS must be defeated in a comprehensive manner, the West needs to stop being feckless over the Middle East, choose a side and work to back them effectively. Western dithering in Syria has led to the rise of ISIS and a whole other assortment of radical Islamic terror groups while Libya remains mired in chaos and Egypt is barely getting back on its feet again. We also need to do a better job of assimilation. A greater emphasis on civic duty in schools, teaching the dominant language (English in the US and French in France) to all immigrant communities and a better job of standing up to those who seek to cow free speech and expression.
And that means for the political elite to defend criticism of Christianity as much as with Islam. That means dealing with the concerns of a middle class that since 2008 has been near under water and has for the better part of the past few years been ignored in its concerns. The middle and workinf class have real concerns about immigration, about economy, about the social and cultural implications of mass immigration. To question liberal immigration and refugee policies is not racism. Until the political elite deal with these concerns in a serious and non-patronizing manner, we will continue to see the rise of fringe parties across Europe.

[Zongxian]

First, there has been constant 'attack,' so to say, against the Western world by radical Islamist ideology from the 2000s to now. Particularly starting with 2003: the murder of Theo van Gogh, the Madrid train bombings, and multiple suicide bombings in Chechnya. And from 2003, there have been numerous incidents every year involving the expression of violent Islamist ideology and sympathies. France and Russia have seen the most with these expressions of radical Islamist thought.

However, you are very naive to think resolving this problem is as simple as defeating ISIS. Clearly this predates ISIS; we've been fighting it since 2001. Yet even with the toppling of two regimes and the subsequent installation of "democracies," there remain incidents in Europe. Of course, since about 2008 we've also had all our additional wars via drones in Yemen and Pakistan, in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything, Western war in the Middle East is what opened the power vacuum that ISIS emerged to fill. Iraq is and has been fractured since Saddam Hussein was removed; the Iraqi state is simply not sustainable without a dictator to force "unity" among Kurds, Shia, and Sunni. And Syria was hardly posing any major threats to the world; only now with Bashar al-Assad caught in a prolonged civil war are radical Islamists able to gain a foothold in Syria. The same is true of Libya, too.

Continued involvement in the Middle East clearly doesn't work at all; it just provides extended reasoning for radical Islamists to carry out their assaults. ISIS is something that should be defeated, just as organizations like Boko Haram, al-Shabab, and al-Qaeda should be. But it's an ideology and no wars will destroy it. If any military conflicts exist involving these groups, it should be to protect secular regimes or to protect groups from genocide. Though even then, war with these groups is not some simple task and history show far has shown that the wars are endless, baring minimal results.

The so-called Global War on Terror is a failure. It has continued to be one since 2001. All the hundreds of incidents in Europe, big and small, that have occurred steadily since 2003 are evidence of that. So what is the best solution? I don't know. But it's clear war isn't working and radical Islamists continue to present a threat to people of all backgrounds, be you secular, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever.

[Afrocentric]

As Zong pointed out, the more we involve ourselves in the Middle East, the more we provoke them and give them a reason to spread their beliefs across the globe. Lets assume that we do destroy ISIS, then what? Do you really think radicalism will be gone from the world and peace will fill the streets of Damascus, Beirut and Amman? History would tell us otherwise and its more likely that the overarching problem in all of this is the mindset of the people who belong to these groups. An example of this would be al-Qaeda, who saw the U.S. take out their leader in Pakistan, kill many of their high ranking officials and cripple the organization down to the core, yet they still exist in 2015. Why? Because you cannot destroy a mindset.

I liken these people to the Japanese under Hirohito; they are willing to fight for their beliefs, even if it means certain death. Can you imagine if the U.S. hadn't dropped the bomb or even considered an invasion of mainland Japan? We'd probably be fighting the Japanese up until the 1960s, that's how committed the Japanese were and the same can be said for radical Islam adherents continues to fight against the West despite our efforts at combating them. If Charlie Hebdo, Madrid, NYC and Bali are the USS Arizona, then they're the Kamikaze pilots.

To be clear, I support the War on Terror and don't believe it to be a "failure", but there is no denying that we are putting America and our allies in danger with the way we conduct it. Honestly, I'm actually more concerned that me and Zongxian have found a bit of common ground on a subject.

[MarkWill]

Getting rid of ISIS will be much better than allowing it to spread, which it's doing right now. Besides for the strategic bombing and low level of "military advisers" that have been sent, how exactly are we still involved? Did we not pull out the last of our troops? Even if we don't get involved, radical Islam will not stop. The intent of those who are willing to give up their lives for the spread of Islam is exactly that, to spread Islam around the world through fear, terror, and destruction.

[CanadianEh]

Getting rid of ISIS will be much better than allowing it to spread, which it's doing right now. Besides for the strategic bombing and low level of "military advisers" that have been sent, how exactly are we still involved? Did we not pull out the last of our troops? Even if we don't get involved, radical Islam will not stop. The intent of those who are willing to give up their lives for the spread of Islam is exactly that, to spread Islam around the world through fear, terror, and destruction.

Yes but America will never get rid of ISIS or other radical groups, I believe that local governments in the area should team up and do this its like America can never back off! The only thing I think the west should be doing is sending humanitarian aid and taking in a few refugees. Like Afro said you can defeat a group but not an ideology.

[MarkWill]

Getting rid of ISIS will be much better than allowing it to spread, which it's doing right now. Besides for the strategic bombing and low level of "military advisers" that have been sent, how exactly are we still involved? Did we not pull out the last of our troops? Even if we don't get involved, radical Islam will not stop. The intent of those who are willing to give up their lives for the spread of Islam is exactly that, to spread Islam around the world through fear, terror, and destruction.

Yes but America will never get rid of ISIS or other radical groups, I believe that local governments in the area should team up and do this its like America can never back off! The only thing I think the west should be doing is sending humanitarian aid and taking in a few refugees. Like Afro said you can defeat a group but not an ideology.

That's what we let them do, and since they were incompetent, militant groups have US material.

[TheNewGuy]

you cannot destroy a mindset.

I mean, you totally could, if you address the concerns these groups (and, perhaps more importantly for those of you with the "WE NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!!1!!!" mindset in spite of the position of the US as the world's largest resource for terror organizations since, idk, the 50s-60s, even moderate groups in the region) have been raising for ages - namely US support for the apartheid state in Israel/Palestine. But hey, whatever.

Besides for the strategic bombing and low level of "military advisers" that have been sent, how exactly are we still involved?

Israel.

you can defeat a group but not an ideology.

Especially when you fuel that ideology directly through blind, unquestioning support for Israel.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE CAN STILL MAINTAIN THAT THIS ISN'T ABOUT ISRAEL. But, perhaps more on topic, I really think it's pretty bullshit how simplistic we imagine the worldviews of people like the gunmen in Paris to be. Why do their actions have to be reducible to some phantom monolithic "Islamic hatred?" Perhaps these gunmen, Algerian nationals, might be a bit upset still about the ~1.5m Algerians killed or the thousands brutally tortured in Algeria in the 50s-60s? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 69184.html

So we have two options: either acknowledge that maybe these attacks have some basis in legitimate grievances (keeping in mind that, despite the fact that violence is of course despicable, the US has set the global standard in claiming the existence of such a thing as "legitimate violence" in geopolitics) and historical inequality and oppression tied to France's colonial past, OR just chalk it up to some imagined Islamic hatred of all things good (freedom, Capitalism with a capital C, boobies, Jack Daniels and modern medicine) ala Bernard Lewis and call it a day. I can't believe how ignorant some people can be on issues like this despite otherwise very demonstrably high intellectual faculties.

[CanadianEh]

Getting rid of ISIS will be much better than allowing it to spread, which it's doing right now. Besides for the strategic bombing and low level of "military advisers" that have been sent, how exactly are we still involved? Did we not pull out the last of our troops? Even if we don't get involved, radical Islam will not stop. The intent of those who are willing to give up their lives for the spread of Islam is exactly that, to spread Islam around the world through fear, terror, and destruction.

Yes but America will never get rid of ISIS or other radical groups, I believe that local governments in the area should team up and do this its like America can never back off! The only thing I think the west should be doing is sending humanitarian aid and taking in a few refugees. Like Afro said you can defeat a group but not an ideology.

That's what we let them do, and since they were incompetent, militant groups have US material.

Do you mean Islamic extremist groups? Or Private Ameries based in the US?

[MarkWill]

Do you mean Islamic extremist groups? Or Private Ameries based in the US?

ISIS

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/chec ... s-in-iraq/

[soysauce]

Fox News fuck up again,

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297