This week the world's anti-terrorism experts met for a conference in Stockholm.
A Western country, however powerful (and even one that is ready to resort to torture) will fail to crush an insurgency if it faces determined popular resistance.
Above all, this new war is being fought, not just on the battlefield, but it is now widely recognized that Muslim hearts and minds matter and that military successes mean little if the battle of ideas is being lost. Soldiers are no longer just fighters but nation-builders. Policemen must visit mosques and explain what they do to sceptical Muslim congregations. (Roger Hardy).
The West and its Islamist adversaries are competing for Muslim opinion, for Muslim's hearts and minds. This war would last Thirty years if we get it right or hundred years if we get it wrong(American expert)
Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, “is absolutely committed to his cause. His religious ideology successfully attracts recruits. He has sufficient population base from which to protract the conflict. … Even support of 1 percent of the Muslim population would equate to over 12 million ‘enemies.’ many of them are ready to suicide for their goals.
What about the westerners? Can we trust a president who lies often on very important issues?
The "war on terror" is best seen in the context of the geopolitics of oil, especially since the 1970s. In particular, the US’s oil dependency and its determination to ensure security of supply has shaped its military policy in the Gulf region. Paramilitary coalitions like the al-Qaida network are one response to perceived US domination of the Islamic "holy places": as long as this lasts, such groups will not be easily defeated (Paul Rogers)
Long wars are usually strategic disasters for winners as well as losers, because they leave all parties exhausted (William S. Lind).
It is seem USA are in a permanent state of war.
More info at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7297139.stm
http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8520
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/article_82.jsp#comments_for_node
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Actually the title reminds me of how dear old Henry V wacked the Frenchies when he concluded the 100 years war at the Battle of Agincourt.

But it might be more appropriate to consider how different folk wacked each other throughout the various Crusades to liberate the Holy land from those dastardly Muslims.

Either way, the west has proved it has the resolve as well as the ability to slap a bunch of heathens into line and if push comes to shove, the technology to blow them off the face of the earth remotely (don't you love those remote controlled drones and cruise missiles)

As for experts on conference junkets, well they advise on everything from Global warming to the state of drains. Ultimately alot of them are there to float a particular political opinion or curry favour for a partuicular lobby group and if the collapse of the USSR is any guide, don't have a clue about anything.

The War on Terror (in reality War on Islamists) will go on until the situation is sufficiently contained.

Areas of Western concern.

1/ Iraq.... If this is about oil, or strategic control/influence (of oil producing regions) then... it will go on until the Alliance has such a bloody nose they leave, or.. they kill enough Al Qaeda and train enough Iraqi's to run the show.

2/ Afghanistan. If Iraq is about "Oil"....what is Afghanistan about ?
One would like to think:
a) Removing a hotbed of terrorist/Islamist training camps.
b) Removing a very large source of the opium/heroin trade.

Speaking of which.... It makes you wonder how committed the USA component of the alliance is, when it appears the CIA used the drug trade from sth America and even trained people in "Marketing" the drugs, while the 'official' government posture was to have a 'war on drugs',

I can only assume that drug money is less tracable to balance sheets, and comes in handy when some reallllly dirty work or bribing of governments or supplying arms to 'our mob' is needed. So... given the Western reluctance to allocate tracable funds to the 'dirty jobs'.. it is easy to speculate on why the opium fields have not by this time been completely eliminated in Afghanistan.

While Al Qaeda can win support from extremist Muslims, There is a huge problem for President Bush to win our support as he proved champion on the lies.
President Bush and seven of his top officials made at least 935 false statements in the two years following 11/9 about national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, an exhaustive examination by the Fund for independence in journalism and the center for Public Integrity shows. This orchestreted campaing was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq
Info for False Pretenses at :
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?source=home&context=overview&id=945
If western leaders do not learn to be honest and they do not learn to respect their citizens, then the Long War would last for many centuries!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Col Rouge,
On war on terror we can not use very often and I do not think we could win this kind of war with <<drones and cruise missiles>>, We can not use this kind of weapons to kill small groups of extremists in various parts of our planet. I am sure the majority of westerners would disagree with this kind of solution. Terrorists can not threaten us really but they can create huge financial problems to countries, which fight against them. I think we must isolate the extremists from the rest of Muslims, and the best way to do that is to win Muslim's hearts and minds.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis “We can not use this kind of weapons to kill small groups of extremists in various parts of our planet.”

Actually that is exactly how they are used

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,387571,00.html

“I am sure the majority of westerners would disagree with this kind of solution.”

I will quote George Orwell on that

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

In other words, do in my name what is necessary to protect me, just don’t tell me if it might challenge my personal ethic.

“Terrorists can not threaten us really but they can create huge financial problems to countries, which fight against them.”

Agree, Margaret Thatcher said, “All attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail. It must be business as usual.”

“I think we must isolate the extremists from the rest of Muslims, and the best way to do that is to win Muslim's hearts and minds”

Only when the Muslim non-extremists understand that any support of their terrorist brethren prejudices their own and their children’s hope for a decent future will your plan stand any hope of working.

In my opinion, trade and business interests form the basis for best hope.

Unlike charity or development aid (call it what you want), which can seen as pay-off, Commercial Trade maintains each side in a process of mutual and tangible dialogue, benefit and respect, with both having a genuine vested interest to tolerate differences which might otherwise divide.

I know the old phrase “dollars talk” is the usual cynical response of the lefties who see trade simply as the tool of capitalism but it not only works however, the fact is it is cheaper than paying people off not to support terrorism.