War on Terrorism is too Soft to Insure Victory

America does not seem to learn anything from Vietnam. The sedation of several here and there and the protesters and the overall mediocre effort of "free force" led to the collapse of the so-called Vietnam War. Our veterans, they are real heroes, fighting for freedom, and Washington is incompetent, and the spread of politics and propaganda are wrong in the same war. The United States seems to once again find a way to develop a chaotic foreign policy and to provide the foundation of the United States ignoring freedom, truth, and moral principles.

The focus of the US military on the proposed parade of trumps is irresponsible, but its postponement should raise a more important question: What does "victory" in the war with terrorism look like? Indeed, what constitutes the US military victory in today's world? Does it resemble the termination of a civil war, the end of all wars, or the nickname of an outdated war? This is another question. Is victory a prerequisite necessary for a military parade?

The problem of Saddam Hussein lies at the heart of the war with terrorism. If Saddam Hussein continues to hold power, it is not just the reason he trains terrorists and gives them shelter, as well as the reason that he symbolizes contempt for all Western values. He abandoned the UN successfully. He broke all the promises after the end of the Gulf War. As long as he is, we are in danger and at risk of terrorist activity.

There is a theory that was born as a result of the September 11 terrorist war. Terrorism is still a core issue, but the anti-terrorism war as an organizational principle is too narrow to focus on military tools and diplomacy, moral practice, trade and others are not enough. It does not fully explain the generosity of the country, and the fact that it sells the Iraq war is a necessary step of reducing weapons of weapons of mass destruction, and it has been proven that such a plan does not exist. Terror still exists