I think the best summary of the war on terror can be found in the fact that the US is forcibly feeding the "terrorists" in Guantanamo while parts of the government are trying their best to cut the money for food stamps for people that are starving.

Even with the quotes, that's still too strong a statement. Until they have been processed by a court they are innocent.

The USA has held innocent people without a trial for over a decade. Some of those people were children when "arrested".

This situation weighs against every American and yet it's still ongoing.

Actually it is even worse. The majority of the people on hunger strike are Yemen nationals that had been cleared for release in 2010 but stopped from Congress after the guy that could not shove the stick of dynamite up his arse properly (underwear bomber) scared them.

It is without doubt a terrible situation that should never have happened to begin with. It's a modern day POW camp. The problem that nobody seems to be able to answer is what exactly you do with them. Their home countries don't want them and the logistics of simply releasing them into the US is very complex i.e. what will they do and what if they don't want to be there.

If nobody wants them, is allowing them to complete their hunger strike not a more humane option than force feeding them with tubes?

I don't understand. What does preventing suicide have to do with cutting costs?

If you stop eating voluntarily the government will literally shove food down your throat so you do not endanger your life. (a process disturbingly close to rape)

If you stop eating involuntarily and your life is in danger because you have no food the government will just pat you on the back if some ultra right republicans have their way. Should all the poor announce that they are on hunger strike too?

So you can have habeas corpus or food security from the government but not both :) It is a dark joke. Not serious policy analysis.

    resort to good old police-work and the judicial system to back it all up.

The problem is that many countries where we have radical militants operating have (a) porous borders and (b) an inadequate police/judicial system. So unless you want another situation like in Mali where there was free reign for militants then you do need the military involved hence a war on terror.

And that is the crux of the issue. When you look at weak states like Mali or Nigeria do people really want a hands off approach ?

Do you believe the US is the one to police the world? That interfering in Mali or Nigeria is going to make the US safer?

The US & friends is the invisible fist behind Smith's invisible hand. America makes markets safe for capitalism. Empire is concerned with simulation, not reality.

So depressing, the stated reason for invading Iraq was they had chemical weapons. While lately FSB advisers to the Syrian government have been tactically using sarin gas to repel the FSA and Sunni mujahideen from strategic defenses. I only mention this for perspective, not to start a debate about Syria.

No I don't. And as a non-US citizen we are grateful that under Obama there has been a push towards multilateral engagement. And that is how you police the world: with established international treaties and institutions that have a strong moral authority.

And yes stamping our radicalism in places like Mali or Nigeria absolutely makes the US safer.

I think you meant to say "stamping out radicalism". Unfortunately, "stamping our radicalism" could be taken exactly the wrong way.

The "war on terror" is actually a war against a specific few radical so-called-Islamist groups. The intelligence services of Spain, the UK, and India (among many others) are working closely with the U.S. intelligence services to wage it effectively.

They are not militant lesbians or Eco-terrorists, they are Muslim fascists who will be killed at our discretion, regardless of any weaker groups consternations.