• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Gloria Tate of Englewood writes:

Regarding “Neither side willing to try victory strategy,” letter writer Russell Shurts’ strategy for winning the global “war on terror” — I fail to see any comparison between the Civil War, World War II and the current war we are waging.
In past wars, it was easy to identify the enemy by location, uniform and equipment. None of this applies now. Where are we going to find them? How are we going to tell an Islamic fundamentalist from a peaceful Muslim and what are we going to do when we do locate them?
If we follow past practice, I suppose we could drop atomic bombs on Indonesia (known terrorists somewhere in there) or certain African countries like Somalia. Or how about the German or French heartland? Or London and Birmingham, England? And America?
We know there are terrorist cells in these places. No, I don’t see how the old strategies are going to work in this new war.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

The best "war" to liken the "War on Terror" to is the "War on Drugs". Both have roots in many locations, both have shifting fronts, the enemy in both look just like everyone else, and both are fueled by endless supplies of money based on American adictions (drugs and oil).

Education and changing how we do things is the only route for victory. We stop people from using illegal drugs the demand is gone, the money is gone, and the war is won. We find other power sources and stop using oil the terrorist have no money and their cause dies.

Brad: Using additional power sources that have already been inentified would be a huge start in shutting off the money that is going to the middle east. However, we can't seem to get that idea through the heads of the politicians in Washington that won't let this happen.

It seems that neither political party wants to vote for a winning strategy for fear that the other side will get some of the credit for coming up with the answer to the problem.

Very informative and educational letter from Brad, with a viewpoint that that I haven't seen developed very much. There is a great reluctance to thinking that we are contributing to the problem, and in a big way.

We are in a war on global terror. There is no debate about this, the concensus is in. Anyone dissenting is an islamofacist denier and are part of the problem so quit trying to prove it wrong. Haven't you heard or seen the movie??? Oh wait, maybe I'm thinking about global warming.

Nevermind.

We may be in a global war on terror, but the current pack of knuckle draggers in the White House are fighting it in a manner that just pits more of them against us. Until we stop depending on their oil and pull our troops off of their soil (Iraq and Saudi Arabia), this will never, ever end. Also, King George seems to have forgotten about working with the rest of the world to stop terror. We are more isolated than we have ever been. Brad has a good point...when we take away or put a stop to what triggers their hatred and fuels their anger, they have no cause...they are then irrelevant. Never ending war is not the answer.

We are certainly in a global war on terror, but republicans are not interested in hearing ways to end it. They just want to keep on keepin on until it becomes somebody elses problem. Last I heard, there were no terrorists who want the war to end, it gives them meaning in their lives. So since republicans and terrorists want this war to keep going, who is really supporting the terrorists kw?

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly