If we truly had to worry only about terrorists hiding in countries with unsympathetic governments but good hiding places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we would have a much smaller problem than we have today.
Smaller, maybe. Much smaller, no.
Two main engines of support for the terrorists are funding and ideology, and both are flowing freely from Iran and Syria, and, yes, factions in SA and Pakistan.
The AQ ideology is dominated by Saudi Arabia, though that ideology has rooted itself in many places, and would continue to flourish even if the Saudi government ceased to support it. Ideology does not need state support to survive, and radical ideology flourishes on oppression.
I have yet to see evidence suggesting that Syria or Iran is a major financial supporter of AQ.
How much stronger would the US position be if we could get inspections of what Saddam shipped to the Bekaa?
We don’t know. I’m certainly not going to rely on Debka to tell me.
governments have addresses that can be pressured, whether they are actively supporting the terrorists or just passively allowing them to do their stuff… That is not to say that anyone can afford to ignore the non-state stuff, it just doesn't lend itself to public diplomacy as much.
That’s why we focus on the state actors, and pay much less attention to the non-state problem, which is at least as large and growing fast. Every time a state bows to us, it’s a propaganda coup for bin Laden. They know that if they want to fight us, they have to work outside our traditional strength, which is the military and economic muscle we can use as levers against states. They have to devise strategies to negate this advantage, and that’s exactly what they are doing. If we keep on playing to our own advantage, we’ll be fighting the wrong war, and that’s a good way to lose.
We can’t get them where we want them to be. We have to get them where they are. |
