I strongly disagree with Mr. Lugar’s assessment that “the war on terror will not be won through attrition” ( “Beating Terror” WashingtonPost.com). At it’s very essence warfare is a war of attrition. Two opposing forces collide and engage stratagems and tactics through continuous flow or broken rhythm to achieve victory. I agree that America must use superior economic and diplomatic strategy to win the war on terrorism, but they must work in concert with an aggressive, thorough and ever engaging all purpose military stratagem. There must be a synthesis of military, economic and diplomatic pressure to win the war on terrorism. The three-phase assault must be strategically waged from multiple formations while always remaining united in its honorable goal of uprooting and eradicating all terrorist threats. Mentally and physical implementation of this assault stratagem can be waged by frontal attack, flanking movements and spontaneous attacks.
Step2
In regards to winning the war on terrorism, budgets will play a key role in winning the war on terror, but it will not be the panacea for stage fright concerning decisive action. It takes money to win wars, but superior stratagems come from the minds of men and women and that will always be the primary driver in any successful warfare endeavor. Superior strategist make elongated use of budgets which gives them multiple options from which they can attack their enemies.
Step3
The United States of America is very wealthy. Budgets are not the problem. If there is a problem it is that superior strategist are not given the authority to implement their dominant stratagems due to political infighting. This must be abolished in order for America to win the war on terrorism. Superior strategist must also be allowed to cross train all relevant military, governmental and civilian soldiers in the art of war. This must be done on multiple levels to keep American supremacy and military viability on a continuous upswing. This stratagem will ensure that America remains the number one globally dominant superpower. This stratagem has multiple implications all of which prove its necessity and relevance in the war on terrorism. Here is a list of three of them:
1.Inaction gives terrorist time and opportunity to launch strategical counter attacks across the globe which threatens world stability as well as the lives of millions with the nuclear, chemical and biological options that will inevitably be available to them in the near future.
2.Decisive action will solidify and strengthen America’s alliances across the globe which in turn gives America strategical first strike capability internationally.
3.Implementation of superior stratagems will bring nations to the American side in the war on terrorism which tightens the noose on terrorism.
Authority 
