Quote:
Originally posted by Mazer
The war in Iraq may be taking resources from homeland secrurity, but so far there hasn't been a lapse in security big enough to allow an other terrorist attack. We've been able to handle both efforts without problems, probably because of the experinece we gained fighting in two theaters in WWII. Even where security is concerned you shouldn't put all your eggs into one basket. But I don't think we should get into any more combat until our forces are finished in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The war on terror, I'm afraid, is one that cannot be fought by the military. What we should be doing is interrogating and investigating captured terrorists, learning their techniques, and planting spies throughout the Middle East to find Bin Laden et at. I wouldn't be surprised if it was happening already, but unfortunately those tactics can't be publicized to bolster public support. Even in the war on terror we need a few heroes, so maybe that's what the war in Iraq was all about.
|
several excellent points here: the situation in Afghanistan has never been properly stabilized - Taliban is resurgent, the government in Kabul is precarious, the warlords still run the rest of the country, and of course, we never got the bad guys. one has to wonder how different things might be if we had poured our miltary resources into there instead of Iraq.
the military is great for invading countries and fighting nations, but after Afghanistan and Iraq, then what? as Mazer describes, it's back to intelligence the old-fashioned way.
we will never "win" the war on terror, period. we will contain it, thwart it, guard against it, strike it where we see it, but there will never be a time when we can say we have all the bad guys, it's all over, everyone can relax now. the concept of the "war on terror" is ominously vague and completely open-ended, and it gives government a blank check to do just about whatever it wants under this banner.
i'd be a lot more supportive of my government on this issue if they were a lot more realistic about the long term strategy. invading Iraq to get at Al Qeda is no more practical than invading Ireland to get the IRA, or Tamil to vanquish the Tigers, or Peru to wipe out the Shining Path, or Spain to crush the ETA etc etc. in the end, conducting the "war" will come down to vigilance, intelligence, and security - and in spite of it all our military might, every now and then something's gonna get blown up and people will die. most every other nation in the world has come to terms with this and we will have to as well. as far as the war on terrorism goes, Iraq's just a dead end street in a bad neighborhood.