They just couldn’t hold it, and we don’t seem to be holding it very well either.
We're not trying to "hold" Afghanistan in any way comparable to the way the Soviets were trying to hold it. They just held a successful loya jirga in Afghanistan. The evidence suggests that Karzai has way more support than the Soviet-backed government ever did.
We’re also exposed in Iraq, and while nobody can chase us out, it is by no means certain that we will be able to achieve the goal of leaving behind a peaceful, stable, Iraq that is at least neutral in the conflict between the US and radical Islam.
True, but I would suggest that this result in itself was not expected by Al Qaeda, and the result would have to be pretty bad indeed to be anywhere near as bad as the deteriorating situation with Saddam was. Having Al Qaeda divert its efforts to Baghdad is not all bad from our point of view. Better that the 4th Infantry fight them than NYC firefighters.
We’re isolated from key allies to some degree,
I don't really think so. But you and I are probably thinking of different key allies. The ones that I think of are Britain, Turkey, Israel and India. These are countries with whom we have common interests these days.
and our problems in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are rapidly approaching the critical point
Again true. But this would be so whether we had fought or not. The problems haven't so much gotten worse as they have ceased being ignored. There are at least elements in both these countries who see that the Islamists can no longer be bought off and are dangerous to them; this was not true before.
The very scale of the 9/11 attacks argues that they were designed to force a military response
If Osama were rational I would agree. But large parts of Al Qaeda's ideology and most of its rhetoric are based on fantasy - the fantasy of the weak, decandant America, that would run after a blow. A fantasy that had been given credence by much of Clinton's foreign policy. Why shouldn't have Osama expected a brief rain of cruise missiles, then nothing? That's what happened before.
don’t see any reason why a blunt, non-ideological assessment of an enemies methods, motives, strengths, and weaknesses should be a disadvantage in defence. It seems to me that it would be an advantage
If one doesn't fall into the trap of "analysis paralysis", or the Clintonian position of always threatening war but never delivering it, so as to lose all credibility. There is no inherent reason why one must chose between Bush's foreign policy and do-nothing 'analysis'. But in the real world, that's where the camps have fallen out. |
