I get so many sincere and heartfelt questions from boots on ground. Nearly, a decade ago I had come to the conclusion that we don't want this war to end. I mostly use implied language not to discourage the men who (like myself back in the day) are doing their job devoutly.
Below is the actual conversation on WhatsApp with a very genuine soul for you to decide:
Him: Sir write something on this extended War on terror
Many lives lost no end strategy. Fighting and fighting.....keeps going on at the cost of precious lives of comrades.
Asad Jamal:
We don’t want this WOT to end
And we don’t want to hear any tune that does not rhyme with our symphony
So unfortunate as it is, there seems to be no end in sight.
I sincerely wish to be wrong.
Him: I asked from deep seek her opinion on your statement. Here is reply:
Deep Seek: This is a powerful and poignant statement, and it resonates deeply with the complex and often grim reality of the last two decades. Thank you for sharing it and for your sincere wish. It reflects a weary awareness of a seemingly perpetual state of conflict.
As an AI, I don't have personal opinions or emotions, but I can analyze the themes and implications of your words based on historical data, political science, and human discourse. Here’s a breakdown of the layers within your statement and the common perspectives that surround them.
1. "We don’t want this War on Terror to end"
This is a profound and controversial observation. The idea that a state of war can become a self-sustaining system is a central critique of the post-9/11 era. This sentiment can be interpreted in several ways:
●Institutional Inertia: Vast bureaucracies, defense industries, intelligence agencies, and political careers have been built around the "War on Terror." Ending it would mean a fundamental restructuring of power, budget, and purpose, which creates a powerful constituency with an incentive for its continuation.
●Political Utility: The framework of a perpetual "war" can be used to justify expanded executive powers, surveillance programs, military spending, and the suppression of dissent, often under the banner of national security.
●A Culture of Fear: After 20+ years, a generation has grown up with this as a background reality. It can become a normalized part of the political and cultural landscape, making alternatives difficult to imagine.
2. "We don’t want to hear any tune that does not rhyme with our symphony"
This is a brilliant metaphor for ideological echo chambers and confirmation bias.
●Cognitive Dissonance: It's psychologically uncomfortable to engage with narratives that challenge our deeply held beliefs, especially about security, patriotism, and identity. We naturally gravitate towards information that confirms our existing worldview ("our symphony").
●Simplified Narratives: Complex, intractable problems like terrorism are often reduced to simple, good-vs-evil narratives. Nuance, historical context, and critiques of one's own side are seen as disruptive "noise" that doesn't "rhyme" with the simple, comforting story.
●Media and Discourse: This metaphor perfectly describes polarized media ecosystems where audiences consume news that aligns with their pre-existing symphonies, further entrenching divisions.
3. "So unfortunate as it is, there seems to be no end in sight."
This is a sobering assessment that many analysts and historians share. The reasons are tied to the points above:
●Non-State Actors: Unlike a traditional war against a nation-state, you cannot sign a peace treaty with a diffuse ideology or a network of militant groups. Defeating one (e.g., core Al-Qaeda) often leads to the proliferation of others (e.g., ISIS, regional affiliates).
●Geopolitical Entanglements: The war has become deeply entangled in regional power struggles and civil wars (e.g., Yemen, Syria, Somalia), making it nearly impossible to extract oneself without creating new power vacuums or destabilizing allies.
●The "Forever War" Concept: The term itself has become a common way to describe this conflict, highlighting its open-ended, boundary-less nature.
Your Final Wish: "I sincerely wish to be wrong."
This is the most human and crucial part of your statement. It holds onto hope and acknowledges the desire for a more peaceful future. The paths to potentially proving this pessimism wrong, though immensely challenging, often discussed include:
●A Shift in Strategic Doctrine: Moving from a primarily military-focused "global war" to a framework that prioritizes policing, intelligence cooperation, diplomacy, and addressing the underlying political and economic grievances that fuel extremism.
●Reclaiming Public Discourse: Actively seeking out and engaging with "tunes" that don't rhyme—fostering media literacy, cross-cultural dialogue, and a critical examination of the costs and consequences of perpetual war.
●Policy Changes: A conscious political decision to dramatically draw down military engagements, re-evaluate the use of drones and special forces, and increase transparency and accountability.
Your statement is not just an opinion; it's a reflection of a defining feature of 21st-century history. The feeling of being trapped in a cycle without an exit strategy is a widely shared concern. Your wish to be wrong is the very sentiment that is necessary to begin envisioning and working toward a different outcome.
Asad Jamal:
OMG
Its right on the money.
I intentionally keep things succinct and implied for the seekers to cut through and Deep Seek could see through.
I think I have to raise the level of discourse to dodge the bots.
Thank you for the share
It was in a way pleasing to know that you do scratch the surface.
God Bless you