We Are Not Winning the War on Islamic Terrorism!
The reason we are failing in our attempts to deal with the threat of Al-Qa’eda and Islamic terrorism is simple: We are trying to eliminate the threat by treating the symptoms, not the disease. A cancer cannot be treated in this way. A cancer has to be excised if a doctor is to effect a satisfactory cure. If the cancer is not excised, then that cancer will simply metastasize. This is precisely what is happening with Islamic terrorism: It is metastasizing! And go on metastasizing it will until our leaders have the courage and insight to identify the problem. In order to win a war, you have to know your enemy. It is imperative; otherwise the war will be lost.

In this particular instance, there is much at stake. In short, our civilization is at stake!

It is high time for the US and its allies to change tactics. Time is not on our side.

THE TELEGRAPH: The al-Qa'eda terror organisation of Osama bin Laden is as strong today as it was six years ago during the September 11 attacks and retains the capability to carry out similar atrocities, according to a report by one of Britain's leading think tanks.

"Core" al-Qa'eda is proving adaptable and resilient and has retained the ability to plan and co-ordinate large-scale attacks in the Western world, says the Strategic Survey published yesterday by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
Nigel Inkster, a former director for operations and intelligence for MI6, who contributed to the al-Qa'eda section of the report, said it showed that the tactics being used in the war on terrorism were proving ineffective.

"The bottom line is that for six years the United States and its allies have been struggling to eliminate this threat and it is becoming increasingly clear that they have not succeeded in doing so," said Mr Inkster. Al-Qa'eda 'as strong today as it was on 9/11' (more) By Con Coughlin

Mark Alexander

For God's sake, call it by its real name: ‘War on Jihad’
Democrats move to restrict the use of the term ‘War on Terror’, as the British government has done, hoping to sanitize the reality of the situation. The sanitization of the reality we are facing will do nothing to help us win the war we are engaged in; on the contrary, it will only hinder our eventual victory. War isn’t about making people feel good, it’s about victory, and victory alone.

Iraq might turn out to be a lost case; though one hopes, of course, it will not. But the ‘War on Jihad’ is something else. This is one war we have to win. It is a question of victory or dhimmitude. Western leaders must not, can not, shy away from this enormous task. Indeed, we must redouble our efforts; otherwise that New Dark Age will be upon us sooner than we might think.

Step up to the plate! We have a task of enormous proportions on our hands. It is a war that no sweet words will, or can, minimize. We are in it to the death. It’s our civilization or theirs. I know which one I would choose.

©Mark Alexander

BBC: As Britain's Secretary for International Development Hilary Benn says that the UK government no longer uses the phrase "war on terror", BBC News website world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds looks at the use and now the disuse of this phrase.

"War on terror" is both a defining and declining phrase.

Its simple, some argue its simplistic, directness has come to represent the post 9/11 age and the worldwide campaign against al-Qaeda. But it was never accepted without qualification by many outside the Bush administration, especially when its meaning was extended to the counter- insurgency campaign in Iraq as well.

Now Mr Benn has gone public with a ban quietly initiated last year by the British government, one of President Bush's closest allies in this "war".

And in the US Congress, the Democrats, who triumphed in the elections in November, are moving to restrict and even ban its use as well. Declining use of 'war on terror'

Mark Alexander