It really didn't gain us anything solid because, like Vietnam, the objectives were never clear, nor the means given to achieve them.

Or should I say, the objectives were never clear once we defeated Saddam. The original mission was WMDs, but little thought was given to what happened after we achieved that objective. Since then, its kind of been a hapless quest to fight off insurgents and re-build the country.

What happens next will likely be bad for the US and the developed world. Iran and Pakistan are very unstable and developing nations. They have the means to defend themselves from attacks for the most part. The next 5 years are not going to be pretty, I'm afraid. I don't know if we've passed the Rubicon yet, but we're careening in that direction.

I think you'll find the US is a significant part of the problem, not the solution. The terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan has increased greatly since the so called war on terror and the number of lives lost has been in the hundreds of thousands not to mention the trillion dollar plus in financial cost. But to really understand the issues you need to be going back decades and even back to WWI if you want to involve French, British and the Ottoman Empire (all of whom used to dominates parts of that region during the 20th century before the US became the dominate force there post WWII).

History tends to repeat itself.

It's a trap! I can just imagine this thread turning ugly.

The only contribution I will make is to say to Seece that it is really incredibly early to decide if it was worth the money or not. Events like this will influence history for hundreds (if not thousands) of years.

It's not a perfect example but at the same I think illustrates the kind of point I'm trying to make. In 1890 a Turkish boat sank near Japan. 533 of the crew died while 69 made it to shore and were treated well by the Japanese people and returned home. 120 years later Japan and Turkey still enjoy great relations and a large part of it is attributed to this event.

Again not trying to draw a direct comparison (or even saying the outcome will be positive in the current situation) but just pointing out that this helping of 69 people greatly aided these countries and Turkey have since done similar kind acts for the Japanese.

Best thing for good relationship in this case is lack of conflict of interest and being separated by thousand of miles from each other ;)

There were plenty of documented studies carried out by the likes of RAND Corporation which gave an alternative to waging war. One way to massively minimise terrorist activity is to stop either directly or indirectly participating in it. In addition terrorism is a criminal activity and like all criminal activities it should be left to the likes of the FBI and their counterparts around the world (Interpol etc) to deal with and bring to justice i.e put the perpetrator on trial (if the wanted can be arrested saftely i.e no shoot out involved) based on the rule of law, due process and a fair civil trial.

The 'War on Terror' to many just looks like a front for increasingly US Hegenomy. It hasn't worked out very well, in fact it's done the opposite and has reduced US influence in the region. It's also been terribly inefficient at eradicating terrorism and has just made it much much worse.

The really sad part is many experts in the fields of geo politics etc all predicted war was going to make terrorism much worse and make the world a less safer place to be in and advised against it but were ignored. True the US hasn't been attacked since (at the expense of introducing some draconian laws as well as being quite lucky in some instances) but other countries who joined in the war haven't been as fortunate. Also I think you'll find the vast majority of the time 'when trouble comes' the world doesn't actually want the US to take unilateral action but rather within an agreed UN framework and in accordance with international law.

Just think about this. Say it was an 'intelligent' war on terror. You could have crack teams of special forces and agents worldwide working together hunting down the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership using good intelligence and then bringing them to court say the International Criminal Court or a US court. They would be put on trial for the world to see and if the evidence is good enough they would be convicted and would recieve the punishment fitting of the crime. It would've been far more efficient, much less dangerous for all involved (apart from the special forces but that's what they are trained to do), far, far cheaper and cost way, way less lives.

In tandem with all this the US MUST change it's foreign policy in order to not allow terrorism to breed. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are blowback. It's a term the CIA coined for being on the receiving end of a fomer 'ally'. Or the enemy of my enemy is my friend (sort of) if you prefer. AQ and the Taliban are the monstrous childs of the Soviet/Aghan Mujahadeen conflict where the US along with the fundamentalist Islamic Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (which was acquiring nuclear weapons know how at the time while the US turned a blind eye) supported the most extreme elements of the Afghan resistence. The US needs to stop propping up vile regimes such as Saudi Arabia (where the Al Qaeda ideology was founded), stop being so one sided in the Pal/Israel conflict and stop flooding the Middle East with offensive weapons. And that's just the Middle East I'm taking about. Oh and invest in renewable and alternative energy sources. 

The whole Middle East will continue to be ruled by theocracy. Shari'a law will be imposed more and more while Conservative groups limit the rights of citizens. Women's rights are on their way out the door religious freedom is going to be almost nonexistent. Freedoms will rapidly continue to dissapear.

I suspect that Tunisia is also headed in that direction though at a slower rate.

Any democratic movement that has a faith at its center. Cannot be a free country. Shari'a cannot be at the center of any countries constitution it simply cannot if the country is to be democratic.

I am guessing that the entire middle east is lost without foreign presence being maintained. The religious Conservatives have to much power and the people impoverished and largely uneducated. It is next to impossible to have western democracy in the middle east without a Government that rules pretty harsh. Israel only survives as a valid democracy by imposing democratic values with force.

No country that puts any religion above its democratic rights and its constitution cannot be free. This includes atheism a country needs to enshrine freedom of belief and speech etc..etc.. in the constitution and make that constitution unconditional.

Assad is horrible and so was Saddam but they did shelter some minorities like Christians and Jews. But when we put democracy in the hands of people who have never had democracy before it takes a while to adjust.

Western forces should remain in all developing democracies for 20 or so years. Democratic values need to be imposed until the country adjusts. No democracies just were born all of them took decades and massive military action. The only other way was a dictator bringing in democracy themselves voluntarily and ensuring the transition occurred peacefully but even then it takes ten to twenty years to fully transition.

Or tribal hatreds will be exasberated by the mining resources as the competing tribes struggle for resources.

Also, the US' military budget is EXTREMLY high as far as a physical number goes.

Though it's actually lower then most middle eastern countries when you scale it against GDP.