Yes, let's pretend that our allies in particular, and ourselves are highly dependent on the vast petroleum reserves that reside deep in the sands of the ME and that terrorists and despots would like nothing more than to find a way to control them, and without our involvement, this goal might be achievable.
Better yet, while we are pretending that this will solve our ME dilemma, we can also pretend that the UN is an effective organization that has Americas and her allies best interests in mind.
I am stunned when I see what appears to be relatively intelligent people making the claim that if we NEVER involved ourselves in the Middle East, we would not have been the targets of terrorists or that our economy and borders would be safer.
Anyone versed in tactics and strategy will tell you that a better defense is a good strong offense. No fight has EVER, let me repeat, no fight has EVER been one by having a good defense.
The ONLY reason America has been involved in the ME was due to the meddling and failures of Europe and other nations and the request of the global community to become the "middle man" in the negotiations between terrorists like Arafat and the PLO and the Israelis.
America also, after initially being against it, went along with the creation of the Jewish State and now realizes that the world and America owes it to the Israeli's to stand by them and prevent their possible annihilation. Anything less is morally repugnant.
So with that, how can anyone suggest that the best strategy now is to give up what over 4,500 young men and women have given up already and the thousands lost on 9-11 because the job is just too hard? I find those opinions and positions stunningly short sighted and incredibly uninformed.
What makes your argument even more laughable is that it also requires taking the position that we caused the terrorist attacks on 9-11 because we werenít there creating enemies.
Historically this is a vain man. He made a local name for himself in college when he rallied for the twisted preachings of Qutb. His activism took him to Afghanistan where he would be a leader and a financier for his "holy" war against communism. When that was over he moved on to continue preaching the evils of capitalism, democracy, pan-Arabism, socialism, and communism while forming pocket organizations in the Balkans and in Africa. And he was very fond of putting his image on video tape.
Why would this stop just around the moment Al-Queda staring taking beating in Iraq? With the Tali-Ban being slaughtered wherever they emerge and Al-Queda being little more than a bloody stump at this point, wouldn't a video image of Osama Bin Laden still defying the evil American empire be the moral boost so desperately needed? They get only recordings. No real proof of life in them but a few references that could imply life (I hear Nostradamus has this ability even to this day too).
But why would the Tali-Ban and Al-Queda need him to appear alive? Because the ignorant misguided souls still prepared to travel across the region to die for his God might be dissuaded if the Tali-Ban's great protector was dead. Because Al-Queda is more of an idea these days and still needs the illusion of a fearless leader to even breathe.
And why would the CIA shy from declaring his probable death? Because without Osama Bin Laden to hunt down...why are we there? And considering how screwed up this area of the Middle East is and the close proximity of nuclear weapons...
- Pakistan's Cold War with India to the East
- Iran's lust for the ultimate weapon to the west
...we have to be there (in one way or another).
But who knows? Maybe he is alive still and simply forsaking his own natural tendency for attention and leadership in the name of his God. Maybe giving his Islamic fighters absolutely no hope is a new tactic. After all...How long did it take to get the Unibomber in our own lands?
But I find it stunning that people keep bringing up the deaths from terrorist attack and soldiers being lost in Iraq as excuse to engage in activities which will cause more death. If you were really interested in preventing those deaths, you'd seek alternatives which doesn't lead to more Americans dying.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I supported the war in Afghanistan until it unnecessarily bled into Iraq, then I saw the campaign for what it was. I saw genuine strategic and structural good in invading Afghanistan, but like with most Western campaigns, too many people saw dollar signs and power play opportunities with old foes, and the good was lost. Now we are just trying to maintain a status quo as Western nations withdraw one by one. Canada will be doing so in 2011.
I agree with GySgt when he says that Bin Laden is dead, and he probably has been for a while. The fact that it isn't being announced goes to show that the whole premise for the war was bogus. I'm not saying 9-11 was a conspiracy. It was a real event that provided a well timed pretext. That's all.