They asked...

Can the 'War on Terror' ever be won?

Hard to better some already highly thoughtful, insightful replies.

It all boils down to definitions, and an appreciation of the human condition, especially in these more modern times, with instant comms and hence immediate and pervasive global access, certainly in thought, and followed not too soon thereafter with hardware.

As with 'politics', and I just mean the interpersonal kind, it exists the minute you have three persons. Conflict can exist with just two. As we have become, or at least think we have become more 'civilised', if you disagree with another, you both rope in the 3rd party and hope that the support of the majority will settle the matter. Of course that didn't work out too well if one lot didn't like the way things were going and thought they could steal a march by causing, and winning, a wee war. Still all very nasty, but usually out in the open with leaders, followers, wins, losses, and end points. With nice neat signings around tables... until the next one.

WW2 and nukes kind of changed it a bit, with a few local flare-ups, but still there were some rules, and those that didn't abide usually ended up on the wrong side of justice, more latterly of an international variety.

Thing is, you knew who they were and, usually, where they were. Call it ego or whatever, the guys starting stuff had a goal in mind and them, free and clear, at the top of the heap in charge. Almost without exception, they were fighting 'the war'... FOR SOMETHING. And staying alive to enjoy the fruits of the conflict.

When it comes to some, not all, terror now, I rather fear there are too many, too often, fighting their wars simply AGAINST EVERYTHING, even at cost of all life, friend or foe. And that is sadly something you cannot negotiate with and hence defeat in totality, save by the impractical (in this day and age) and unacceptable (in any age) attempt to eradicate any different way of thinking. Certainly by force, though the power of persuasion still might have a chance over time. It rather goes to who is using persuasion whilst others might be opting for force.

So no, by this measure I do not think you can ever claim a victory with most of the wars of terror being conducted now.

But that's not to say there is not great value in them still being fought. The alternative seems even less attractive, though perhaps not to some black or white, soundbite-addicted, instant-solution obsessed media outlets.
----
Written whilst sparing a thought for all those innocents who have needlessly had their lives snuffed out through the violent actions of those who would impose their will on others in what can only be described as the most cowardly, dishonourable ways imaginable.

But especially, today, all those involved in the 9/11 attacks.

And as it is the BBC, my national broadcaster, who is deeply involved in the media aspects of these conflicts and inspired this reply, I have to say that, no matter what cerebral, newspeak, PC-rationales might be attempted, I can never see merit in referring to such such premeditated attacks on defenceless civilians as 'daring'.

BBBC - NEW

BBC headline;
"No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus"

So when you play the video this is what happened;
BBC: Will you ever use the word victory.
Petraeus: I don't know that I will. etc.
The rest of the scene Petraeus says that you should let the facts spek for themself and stick to the truth.