Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewC  I believe the media calls this whack-a-mole. |
That's because the media has and always will be stupid. Non-military personel writing stories about what is going on in the military world frequently have their heads up their asses. "Whack-a-mole" describes a situation where we hit Al-Queda and they simply pop up in another location. This isn't accurate. It was accurate for the insurgency in Iraq for a time, but never for Al-Queda. Our efforts thus far, regarding Al-Queda, is to cover the holes. Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer an option for them. This is why they have merged into Pakistan and in the northern mountain region. Parts of Africa are no longer an option. Parts of the Phillipine jungle are no longer an option. Parts of India are no longer an option. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria were never options.
One of the reasons fanatics were traveling to Iraq to kill Americans and their fellow Muslims was to deter Iraq from becoming a democracy. This is why Al-Queda was threatening to kill those who dared to vote. The reason is because fanatics and extremists simply cannot thrive in an environment where the people make the decisions. They know that their futures lie in the hands of religious regimes and fanatical populations. This is why Al-Queda has found comfort in Pakistan today. They are running out of locations within this region to go. From Cairo to Islamabad, they are running out of places to pop up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewC I'm not entirely thrilled with that anology, but it does illustrate the challenge. Instead of hunting those that want to attack America we are nation building. It seems so much simpler and easier just to catch or kill the problem people. Instead of occupying or making shady deals with every government in the middle east and Africa. |
And what of what creates these problem people? What good does it do to chase about the individuals when the civilization continues to breed them? This is like shooting thin air. "Simpler" isn't an option because it isn't a simple issue. And what shady deals are you referring to? Shady deals is what we employed during the Cold War when we embraced the dictators and fanatics to repell an enemy. Today we help them secure democracies, which is what we should have been doing all along. Everything we have been doing has been quite public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewC To me, and perhaps you disagree, our current strategy depends on some day there being peace and prosperity throughout the Muslim world. That somehow when democracy blossoms terrorism will die at its roots. This is extremely idealist and grand. We've been working with (and against) Muslims for decades. When is the payoff? Everyone keeps saying, "it's just around the corner. You'll see." I don't buy it. |
You don't buy it, because you are aware that statements of "
it's just around the corner" are BS. This would mean that you have a brain. The goal was never to end religious terrorism. We haven't ended it in our Western world. But we have managed to make it entirely manageble where don't have to worry about a lunatic's organization slaughtering 3,000 people. The occassional abortion clinic bombing is actually not that bad. And what is so different between the West and the Middle East that they literally have hundreds of terrorist organizations seeking targets and victims? What is so different betwen our civilizations that an entire Arab nation like Sudan can wipe out tens of thousands of Muslim
non-Arabs and Chrisitian without raising an Arab eyebrow throughout the region? What is the difference between our civilizations that these terrorist organizations throughout the region receive applause and praise from millions of Muslims?
The answer isn't as simple as democracy. It was comes from democracy. The ability to express oneself without violence. The ability to effect social, religious, and economical change without banding together into militant groups. The ability to contribute (50 percent of the Arab world are forbidden from contributing to their societies). The ability to worship God without fear of persecution form another tribe. The ability to seperate church and state to at least a healthy degree without the need of a brutal dictator. But perhaps the most important thing that we have that they don't is creativity. How far can an oppressive, brutal civilization progress without the ability and freedoms to express creativity?
The result of their religiously oppresive civilization is a breeding of religious terror.
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
