Again, with the Nazis vs Muslims
That needs careful treading. The implications are vast, and require serious, not flippant, analysis.
The Nazis had a country, and took over countries.
Are you saying there these Muslims even consider a military takeover of the US, much less have a chance of doing so?
Of course not.
It's an argument over American presence in the M.E., period, an area where we don't belong in the first place.
Now we have to punish some countries, and to justify that we have to add to the agenda going after Saddham, and anything else on the hit list. Personally, I'm in favor of a coordinated coordinated planetary housekeeping effort to reduce mass-destructive weapons, as a lifelong enterprise, so gee, that's fine.
Now, once that's done, when do we quit?
What is the definition of sucess?
If we go by previous 200 skirmishes worldwide since 1950, there is no "success", just continuing skirmishes relevant only to local warlords and our corrupting to our political process.
Which in this case, guarantees continuing terrorism in this country if the terrorists have enough suicide weapons, which seem to be, incredibly, in unlimited supply.
The POV suggested is a withdrawal from constant military presence in areas with feuds not our own. Not the mass-destructive housekeeping, not the punishment demanded in the 9/11 aftermath, but the long-range foreign entaglements that were warned against since the Founding.
I don't think Neville had the same POV |
