The War on Terror, the Occupation of Iraq- Victory?

I am seriously interested if anyone's opinion is realistic on Terror and Iraq.
Including the republicans and democrats who are playing politics in Washington.

Any posters care to explain two things-

1. What exactly would a victory and end to the War on Terror look like?
2. What would a victory in Iraq look like?

Since victory is going to be defined by what each person believes are the objectives I think my real point is- Does anyone really seriously believe that victory is obtainable.

I personally believe we could say we won the Viet Nam war, and we won the Korean war, and we won the war on drugs if we rationalize it by our own definitions of victory.

So let me ask you to consider at least that victory on the war on terror would safeguard the U.S. citizen from terrorism.

And that victory in Iraq would provide for the removal of military forces.

That seems reasonably consistent with the most basic definition of victory IMHO,

Just to give some examples I think it is fair to say that a victory acheived in the war on terror would include a significant reduction in the number of operational terrorist groups, since there existence is what presents the risk to the U.S. - is that fair?

So can anyone explain how this is to come about and what it will take or what it will look like- is there really a logical and rational answer to these issues or is this another 'war on drugs' thing?

 

That was good discussion.
I once took a continuing ed. course called Root Cause Analysis- it really dealt with understanding how to understand the primary causes of a given problem and proved that solving primary causes was much easier than dealing with surface solutions.

This is why I compared it to the war on drugs- the factors are complex unless you have an understanding of the primary causes. The cold war was basically political in nature- no active fighting- more positioning and strategy-there was not an objective nor significant engagement with the enemy- I would call it politics and spy vs. spy stuff- that's why its end occured do to economics and the fallout on politics. There is still some residue of cold war politics but it is increasingly focused on the middle east instead of Russia or China. You might say there is still cold war type action going on between the US and N Korea also. IMO


I have questioned what are the primary causes for terrorism?
Care to take a shot at that?

 

I think your use of the word 'occupying' in Germany and Japan is not the same as our 'occupying' in Iraq.

Point is withdrawal of troops due to victory happened in both Germany and Japan.

I questioned whether you could call victory in Nam and N Korea.

by definition you are off topic-

What would victory in the war on Terror look like if it happened?
What would victory in Iraq look like?

For all we are doing in Iraq and in response to 'terrorist threats' there should be a clear cut answer- I would think.