ROBERTENEAL
April 26th, 2009, 9:01 pm
It is now considered to be politically incorrect to suggest that the "war on terror" still exists. The fact remains that there are still millions of people in this world who think that "death to the United States and death to Israel" is a good policy. The Islamic war against western civilization was initiated centuries before there was a United States of America, so the mentality of Islamic extremism goes back a long way. The "Armies of Mohammed" started their wars of conquest back in the seventh and eighth century in southwest Asia, north Africa and Spain. Islamic invasions continued through the centuries. Most of those campaigns were conducted without invitation.
Those were the old days. We are more familiar with the more recent aggression of Islamic terrorists on 9-11-01
The destruction of the WTC on 9-11 produced a situation with no good alternatives. Ignoring the situation would not have been an acceptable alternative.
Maybe the U.S. should have reacted by going into a defensive shell, no offensive action outside the U.S. whatsoever. Declare martial law, a state of full alert, no one comes in, no one goes out. Very stifling, but there are those who would argue in favor of this tactic. I don't know if this type of plan was ever on the table, so moot point.
We knew that the primary conspirators behind 9-11 were members of Al Qaeda, and that Al Qaeda was headquartered in the mountains of Afghanistan. The obvious thing to do would have been to conduct a full scale assault on the mountains of Afghanistan. Never mind that the might of the Russian military got bogged down in Afghanistan for ten years (1979 - 1989) while guerrilla warriors sat up in the hills and laughed at them. Never mind that Al Qaeda wanted to sucker us into fighting on "their turf" and on their terms. Maybe we should have bit; just send the whole kit and kaboodle into Afghanistan and keep 'em there. Maybe we would have captured bin Laden and that would have convinced every Islamic terrorist in the world that they should respect the United States. Yup, yup.
Maybe we should have sent troops into every country where terrorist cells exist; every country in the 10-40 window of Asia and Africa, ever island of Indonesia, Europe, every urban area of North America. A world wide seek and destroy mission. We have enough resources to do that, don't we?
Perhaps the smartest thing the U.S. could have done would have been to draw a multifaceted Islamic enemy into conflict in a location that favors the U.S. on many different levels. This location would have to be in the geographic heartland of the Islamic world , it would have to be a location that is historically important to all Islamic groups (cradle of civilization, headquarters of the old Caliphate, etc.), it would have to be a country that contains a diversity of Muslim groups (Sunni and Shia), it would have to be a country that is home to some groups that favor U.S. presence (Kurdistan), the element of protecting resources (petroleum, agriculture, etc.) would have to be part of the deal, as would the element of freeing the oppressed from a brutal despot (Saddam and his sub-human sons).
With a war going on in a high profile location; a non-conventional "war of the shadows" in other more obscure but strategically important locations may be more feasible than it would be otherwise. Not to mention the importance of having a centrally located staging area from which to conduct these clandestine missions into Afghanistan and other locations in that part of the world.
I don't think that the WMD rationale was not an accurate explanation for going into Iraq, I think that the explanation was diversionary in nature.
In spite of the faulty explanation for military operations in Iraq, is it possible that the Bush administration knew what it was doing in regard to fighting terrorism after all?
Those were the old days. We are more familiar with the more recent aggression of Islamic terrorists on 9-11-01
The destruction of the WTC on 9-11 produced a situation with no good alternatives. Ignoring the situation would not have been an acceptable alternative.
Maybe the U.S. should have reacted by going into a defensive shell, no offensive action outside the U.S. whatsoever. Declare martial law, a state of full alert, no one comes in, no one goes out. Very stifling, but there are those who would argue in favor of this tactic. I don't know if this type of plan was ever on the table, so moot point.
We knew that the primary conspirators behind 9-11 were members of Al Qaeda, and that Al Qaeda was headquartered in the mountains of Afghanistan. The obvious thing to do would have been to conduct a full scale assault on the mountains of Afghanistan. Never mind that the might of the Russian military got bogged down in Afghanistan for ten years (1979 - 1989) while guerrilla warriors sat up in the hills and laughed at them. Never mind that Al Qaeda wanted to sucker us into fighting on "their turf" and on their terms. Maybe we should have bit; just send the whole kit and kaboodle into Afghanistan and keep 'em there. Maybe we would have captured bin Laden and that would have convinced every Islamic terrorist in the world that they should respect the United States. Yup, yup.
Maybe we should have sent troops into every country where terrorist cells exist; every country in the 10-40 window of Asia and Africa, ever island of Indonesia, Europe, every urban area of North America. A world wide seek and destroy mission. We have enough resources to do that, don't we?
Perhaps the smartest thing the U.S. could have done would have been to draw a multifaceted Islamic enemy into conflict in a location that favors the U.S. on many different levels. This location would have to be in the geographic heartland of the Islamic world , it would have to be a location that is historically important to all Islamic groups (cradle of civilization, headquarters of the old Caliphate, etc.), it would have to be a country that contains a diversity of Muslim groups (Sunni and Shia), it would have to be a country that is home to some groups that favor U.S. presence (Kurdistan), the element of protecting resources (petroleum, agriculture, etc.) would have to be part of the deal, as would the element of freeing the oppressed from a brutal despot (Saddam and his sub-human sons).
With a war going on in a high profile location; a non-conventional "war of the shadows" in other more obscure but strategically important locations may be more feasible than it would be otherwise. Not to mention the importance of having a centrally located staging area from which to conduct these clandestine missions into Afghanistan and other locations in that part of the world.
I don't think that the WMD rationale was not an accurate explanation for going into Iraq, I think that the explanation was diversionary in nature.
In spite of the faulty explanation for military operations in Iraq, is it possible that the Bush administration knew what it was doing in regard to fighting terrorism after all?