[logician2u]

There are no other issues if we don’t win the War on Terror.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, pal. The so-called War on Terror is, like the so-called War on Drugs and the so-called War on Poverty that preceded it, is not winnable.

If you believe it is, I suggest you offer your solution to the eventual Republican Presidential nominee in a sealed envelope to be opened once the campaign kicks off next Labor Day -- because he's going to need one heck of a boost to overcome Hillary's lead by that time. (And, as you probably know, Hillary is also a fan of the WOT and any other policy that strengthens the executive branch she hopes to step into.)

[doug from upland]

Thanks. Duh, I guess I was just too stupid to understand it all, pal. I’ll try to pay more attention to you and get this sawdust out of my head. What was I thinking?

[evad]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, pal. The so-called War on Terror is, like the so-called War on Drugs and the so-called War on Poverty that preceded it, is not winnable.

Interesting logic in that statement.

Even if I agreed with your premise, you don't always fight a war because you think you can win. Sometimes you fight because you have no other choice.

Now the war on poverty, the war on drugs, very well may not be winnable but the war on terror must be fought at very front, win, lose or draw. We have no other choice.