Uncle, you wrote; "The time for talking is long past. The politicians failed.
The war has been defined and two of the battlefields have been defined.
I prefer we now let our military speak in the language they know best."
I wish it was that simple for me. What is the war that has "been defined?" Is it a war against the initial small group of radicals that were trying to create a big enough bang to get publicity and garner support among the Muslims? Is it a war against the much larger and rapidly expanding group of Muslims who have become ever more radicalized by perceived injustices, tortures and civilian deaths in Iraq? Is it against those people who tacitly support and encourage the radicals or refuse to oppose them? Is it against the entire Muslim world? I'd like to know because while our military is quite capable of decimating any enemy who dares to stand against it, who is it that our military can focus their power against?
I think the "war" is not only poorly defined, I think the "war" is incapable of clear definition. The very survival of our real enemies depends upon their ability to blend into and hide among the innocents and the near innocents. No matter how good we get at making inroads into this "cover" they will get better at using it. That means that they, not our military, will most often be able to dictate the when, where, how and who of attacks. As you know, this is a long term losing scenario.
If we attempt to kill them by targeting them among the innocents and near innocents, as we have, the ranks of our real enemies will continue to grow much faster than we can kill them. After all, how would you react if your wife, children or family were "collateral damage" from a Muslim nation's attack that consciously targeted someone located in the crowd they were a part of?
Our only real hope would be to enlist the support of the masses of people who could help us identify and kill the ones among them with the guts, determination and means to wage attacks, but you say that the politician's have failed and that the "time for talking is long past." I think that was the cowboy thinking of the Bush people and, partly because of their approach, most of the Muslim world is now aligned squarely on the side of the most radical Muslim extremists in terms of approving of the "rightness" of using the tools of terrorism for political purposes.
I also question whether two of the battlefields have "been defined." When people in the Bush Administration recently questioned the danger of the tens of thousands of radicals who've been in Iraq, who've learned the best methods of employing terrorist tactics against the best we have to offer, and who are anonymous, skilled and deadly foes who will return to their own countries, I think that was a better indication of the real battlefield. That battlefield is wherever Americans live, work, and do business.
Among the billions of people living on this planet we haven't been able to locate one of the 5 most well known men in the world using every means possible over the last 4 years. Bin Ladin will pop up whenever he wants and whenever it benefits his cause. That tells me that the world's a big place and we might consider that we're not as omnipotent as we sometimes think. In the end it is "talk" and not offensive military force that will reduce the risks of organized and extensive terrorist attacks and the sooner our power dizzy leaders recognize that, the better.
It's tempting to wish for a world where the solutions to deadly problems simply required will, determination, strength and courage. Unfortunately, in today's world we must also employ compromise, wisdom and empathy if we are to survive and maintain a civilized way of life. Ed |
