Free Essays on War On Terror

How does one expect to win a war on terrorism? Fighting terrorists is like fighting drug cartels. The terrorists have the advantage. They are small and maneuverable unlike the US, which is large and sluggish. We have so many rules and procedures for fighting wars by the time we are prepared to strike our intelligence will be obsolete. Our organizations are so mechanical with their rules and regulations, it makes us more susceptible to infiltration. The very freedoms we try to protect are what make the US such any easy target. The only way for George Bush to fight this war is the same way his father fought the Gulf War: Lots of air strikes. They are much more effective and run a lower risk of further American casualties. We have the money, and technology to use missiles so why not use them? Why should we put more Americans in danger? Possibly the worst mistake the United States can makes using ground troops. Have we learned anything from Vietnam? We can’t go into hostile terrain and territory with large armies trying to fight conventional warfare. Our forces would be picked off one by one by snipers and well-fortified bunkers. If the US should move in with ground troops, there should only be well planned tactical strikes that require few people and once in the field has no or limited contact with high command (Clark). This will protect both the men and the mission. The biggest problem I can foresee is the fact that we don’t really know who we are fighting. Even if we were to assassinate Bin Laden would that stop the al-Qaeda(bin Laden’s terrorist organization). Most cells of the al-Queada are completely autonomous. They raise their own funds and plan their own missions (Beyer, 59). Plus, there are fanatics that operate completely independently of large organizations. Can we stop them all? Because we are concern about civilian casualties, how do we strike the terrorists who live and operate in major cities? ... Free Essays on War On Terror Free Essays on War On Terror How does one expect to win a war on terrorism? Fighting terrorists is like fighting drug cartels. The terrorists have the advantage. They are small and maneuverable unlike the US, which is large and sluggish. We have so many rules and procedures for fighting wars by the time we are prepared to strike our intelligence will be obsolete. Our organizations are so mechanical with their rules and regulations, it makes us more susceptible to infiltration. The very freedoms we try to protect are what make the US such any easy target. The only way for George Bush to fight this war is the same way his father fought the Gulf War: Lots of air strikes. They are much more effective and run a lower risk of further American casualties. We have the money, and technology to use missiles so why not use them? Why should we put more Americans in danger? Possibly the worst mistake the United States can makes using ground troops. Have we learned anything from Vietnam? We can’t go into hostile terrain and territory with large armies trying to fight conventional warfare. Our forces would be picked off one by one by snipers and well-fortified bunkers. If the US should move in with ground troops, there should only be well planned tactical strikes that require few people and once in the field has no or limited contact with high command (Clark). This will protect both the men and the mission. The biggest problem I can foresee is the fact that we don’t really know who we are fighting. Even if we were to assassinate Bin Laden would that stop the al-Qaeda(bin Laden’s terrorist organization). Most cells of the al-Queada are completely autonomous. They raise their own funds and plan their own missions (Beyer, 59). Plus, there are fanatics that operate completely independently of large organizations. Can we stop them all? Because we are concern about civilian casualties, how do we strike the terrorists who live and operate in major cities? ...