Terrorists move:

Terrorists step up guerillia style attacks in US occupied countries in the middle east.
Usage of cheap roadside bombs, sniper attacks on patrols, bombing of any institution benefitting the US order like police stations.

It should cost the USA more than it does the Terrorists. Make locals afraid of dealing with americans for fear of retaliation.

There is no winning end in a spiral of hate and violence...

Theres is also no question, that neither the US nor it's enemies will ever cease to exist. The question is what kind of existence it will be.

For this 'game' I can see a number of outcomes. One darker than the other, no winners.

- Pakistani government crumbles, extremists take over, try to use nukes on US allies in the region, US is forced to open a new front.

- Israelis attack Iran preemtive of further nuclear development

- Kim Jong-Ill feels dickheaded, makes a 'glowing' exit

- ...

IMHO the source of the whole terrorist problem is (esp. but not only US) intelligence agenies that grew extremist groups all over the world to do their bidding. Unequal distribution of wealth adds oil to the fire. Therefore each country that is honestly interested in peace and equality around the world should shut down any agency/coorporation/institution that opperates beyond public control. Furthermore environmental and resource issues have to be adressed in a way that engages the people. That would pretty much turn todays economy and government systems upside down... Oh, well

Interesting reading, esp. for tech-savies: http://frank.geekheim.de/?page_id=128

Greetings!

Attacks on the USA infrasturcture would have most affect for the lowest costs. 

In the UK a few years ago a group of striking truckers blockaded oil refinaries and it became public knowedge that the entire UK petrol sources relied on a very few refinaries (3??).  Limiting their productivity could criple the UK, and the same could work in the US.  I think that both contries only have stocks for 30ish days.

The other way would be to blow up local substations.  In all reality how could the US/UK protect plyons etc?  They could build their way out the problem but that would take years.

London would be crippled if the M25 and the tube were taken out on the same day, 5 ish bombs and more threats could do it.

first of all if anyone "wants" to win they have already lost.

the only way to win this war is to ask yourself: what is terror?

Terror: intense, sharp, overmastering fear.

and what is fear?

Fear: a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.

so terror and fear are emotions. and what is an emotion?

Emotion: an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.

what is consciousness?

Consciousness: the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people.

this means Terror is Thought.

so what is winning?

Win: to gain the victory; overcome an adversary

why do we have to win?

when you really understand this question you will realise that our own human conditioning is the reason we like winning and dislike losing, we are trained into thinking that its better to win than lose.

what is war?

War: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

so what is conflict?

Conflict: to come into collision or disagreement.

why do we disagree?

we disagree because we are selfish to our own thoughts. therefore, our own thoughts breed conflict.

so the only way to "win" in a sense is to bring about a new way of thinking in all humans, which is not poisoned by propaganda, religion, politics, institutions, and opinion.

Correct. The thought "I can win" is at the base of violence in all its forms. Defending ones self from attack is necessary also, though. Probably if there is a way to prevent it, ultimately...it is to remove the causes...poverty, disease, injustice...all come to mind, though more could easliy be added.

*bold letters my addition.

I might have used "judgement" there instead, or as well...but that's a minor thought.

Excellently reasoned and posed. Nice to see someone truly thinking out there.

Random thoughts:

Terror is a tactic in an eternal war between the Abraham faiths. The only thing that brings the USA to it's knees is fear-mongering.

I think your conditions for victory would only be realized after a very long cultural war, which I think the USA would win.

I think only civil war would break the states apart. But the chances of that are extremely slim. And even if by some chance Texas, for example, tried to secede the Feds would squeeze Texas to death.

I fully support arming people who fight against oppressive regimes, like the Taliban. This tactic does not always work, however.

I believe that short term our cultural credibility has taken an enormous hit by the absence of a draft in the USA. These security clowns in Kabul and the torture clowns at Abu Ghraib ruined any chance of a multilateral approach to combating terror.

I believe a military draft and mandatory military service in the USA would reduce the impression that this is a religious war. And I believe this would exponentially shorten the time required for our inevitable cultural victory. 

I see that StAcK3D_ActR has issues with the phrasing of the question. He's not the only one and the "War against Terrorism" is indeed regarded by some as a convenient construct created for the sake of the military-industrial complex.

But for the sake of this little mind game I simplify reality. So just assume the following:

The enemy called "Terrorism" is any foreign or native group or organization willing to attack US citizens, property, financial assets or anything else "owned" by the USA for the purpose of a political goal directly opposed to US presence or existence (or even under the pretense of a political goal). This even includes torching Saudi branches of McDonalds to stop the spread of american decadence and stuff. Single persons that simply hate america for whatever reasons and kill random americans do not count.

The "War" is conflict between the USA and participants of above "Terrorism", which can be fought by any (realistic) means imaginable, including non-violent means like diplomacy. US companies hiring mercs to kill local union leaders and other resistance groups opposed to their presence do not count unless they act as proxies for the war effort.

You are not allowed to "win the war" by redefining the meaning of "war" nor the meaning of "win".

A good terrorist long-term strategy: Draw the USA in lots of little vietnams. This would cost the USA far more than the terrorists and will lead to an eventual total collapse of the US economy.

What war? Part of the problem is aggressive language used by the US when dealing with other countries. War, terrorism, attacked, seem to be handed out without reason at times.

It is not an attack when another country has a different culture to you, but using those kinds of words will lead to an aggresive response back.

The foreign policy of 'if you do not agree with me 100% then you're my enemy' is doomed to failure.

No truer words ever spoken or written.

It's just a shame that this lesson hasn't been learned in over 2000 years.  Humans sure have and continue to make a mess of good thing.        

Glass it all.

This is true. It is arrogant/fascistic at its base and only violence can stem from it, I feel.

It is a challenge and at it's core is: "I am right, you are wrong. I can win." The "I can win." impulse has to be curbed.

The only way to win is not to play the game.

At the same time, one is obligated [either passively or actively] to defend ones self if truly threatened.

The problem Arrodo is that you have defined winning as having foreign military bases. To many this is an aggressive act and therefore negates any possibility of ending terrorism. Not only that but terrorists will never have enough power to erase the bases so this is a formula for endless war unless you go nuke. But even that is no guarantee because nuking civs would spawn a whole new category of terrorists. Overnight the USA would go down the shitter.

Nah, the US losing all foreign military bases is a winning condition for the Terrorists. They can be lost through destruction or because they become too expensive to afford or because they simply got kicked out. Columbia might get a left leaning president and demand the USA close their military bases there. This wouldn't even be a terrorist act but it would work towards their winning conditions.

The USA has numerous military basis around the world, for whatever purpose they may serve.

Let's make it easier for Terrorists by excluding bases located in "western" allied countries.

And don't give up so soon on behalf of the USA. Even the cold war ended eventually. And maybe we find a really ingenious and productive use for nukes. You may even invent new weapons, like those mini-nukes Bush wanted to use (or was it Rumsfeld?). No fantasy bullshit weapons like the "gay-bomb" and such, though.

The problem lies in that this thinking is going on from both sides. Not all Islamics think that way: I know a few here and they're all reasonable. Hell, one of my sister's bridesmaids was Muslim (and you'd better believe that went over well in an all-white small town).

The fanatics, however, are not reasonable and cannot be fought using reason. If someone has convinced themselves that Allah has instructed them to kill anyone who denies the faith, the only reasoning they can understand is force. If someone is willing to martyr themselves for their faith, I think we should do all we can to fulfill that wish as swiftly as possible, and hopefully prevent them from taking anyone else with them when they do.

In real terms, this is a clash of opposing ways of life. Our very existance is a threat to their religious teachings, so they have no problem seeing people on a train in Madrid or office buildings in New York as enemy combatants. In the conflict they are fighting, those people ARE enemy combatants; any civilization not living by their laws is considered a threat, and slacks on a woman is just as much a uniform as BDUs on a soldier.

There is only one way to win a war, and that is to destroy the enemy's will to fight it. Of course, that is also the only way to successfully *lose* a war; that is, if the enemy's objective is genocide surrendering doesn't help you a whole lot. Even if we unilaterally declare a loss in the war on terror, don't expect the attacks to end. To the extremists, our way of life must cease to exist for them to consider themselves "winning" the war.

Wasn't referring to anyone in particular.

If everyone minds his own business, and leaves others to theirs, chances are nothing will happen. If someone comes looking to harm you, defend yourself.