Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Please document any threats by Bin Laden, PRIOR TO 9/11, to attack the US solely because of US support for Israel."
The problem is not Osama bin Laden. The problem is that the people who live in Arab countries generally either support Osama and hate us, or are, at best, indifferent to both of us. The result is that Osama is able to obtain support in these countries.
You are trivializing the question of the battle for "hearts and minds of the Arab peoples" into the infinitely more difficult problem of the battle for the heart and mind of Osama bin Laden.
Yes, it's obvious, at least to me, that Osama cannot be won over. But why should I care what his particular beliefs are?
The real problem is that we have insufficient sympathy among the Arab peoples.
The reason we have little sympathy is because we are a staunch supporter of their enemy, Israel.
If Bush kills Osama (or Saddam) tomorrow, the terror (or guerilla war in Iraq) will continue.
If it were the case that the leader of a people were leading them where they did not want to go, then yes, killing the leader might stop the movement. But this is not the case in Palestine, Iraq or with the Arab terrorists. The problem is that the people in general are more supportive of their home grown "freedom fighters" than they are of us.
If it were the case that killing the leader would eliminate the movement, then the Israelis, with their excellent secret services and targeted killings, wouldn't have a terror problem.
The problem for the Israelis is not that a few Palestinian secret organization leaders are leading the people in a direction where they would not want to go. Their problem is that the Palestinian people hate the Israelis, and thus do not provide sufficient assistance to the Israeli (or Palestinian) police to eliminate the secret organization itself.
Re: "And btw, I'm not particularly keen about having US soldiers involved over there either. However, unlike yourself, I believe that their presence is necessary in order to effect political and economic change that will eventually prove positive for the people of the region."
In the two weeks that have transpired since you wrote the above, the situation has continued to spiral out of control, somewhat faster than I expected. Eventually, Bush will have to run from Iraq with his tail stuck between his legs, and admit that his cowardice about WMDs led him to attack a tiny country for no real reason, but despite the desperate difference in size, wealth, and military power, that our soldiers were unable to pacify the civilians. This is a perfect example of the discrepancy between military power in occupation versus military power in defense -- the advantage is huge in favor of the defender. The sooner Bush pulls us out, the less embarrassing it will be for our country, the fewer dead US (and UK) soldiers, and the less the damage to the war on terror (which is to win hearts and minds, not to hopelessly try to control territory that cannot be controlled).
Armed resistance rising in Iraq
MSNBC, June 27, 2003
4 U.S. soldiers killed in 2 days amid report
of new assaults
U.S. troops in Iraq fell victim to more attacks Friday as armed resistance to U.S. and British military occupation appeared to be rising. Meanwhile, the hunt continued for two soldiers who went missing north of Baghdad.
...
msnbc.com
Re: "Doing nothing in the face of the demographic baby boom transpiring in the region would be to fiddle while Rome burns."
You're right, we should do something. But sending over young men with guns didn't work so good, did it, LOL. Look, you're basically an idiot, and therefore are extremely limited in your search to solutions to problems. The only solution you can imagine is sending young men with guns into a region where their presence causes the locals to hate us even more than they did before we arrived. Your solution not only didn't work, and cannot work, it is counterproductive.
This is a battle for hearts and minds. We cannot control the territory of Iraq any more than we could have controlled the territory of Vietnam. Only the Iraqis or Vietnamese are willing to take the combat death toll that is required to control their own land.
The situation before 9/11 was dangerous, as the WTC attack proved. But the situation now is worse, with the Arabs more polarized against us than ever before. Eventually Osama (or other Arab terrorist groups) will get lucky again, but the next time it will be with better support from the Arab people, and possibly worse for us. (Though they were damned lucky at the WTC.)
Jesus weeps! Before we went into Iraq there were plenty of Iraqis who thought well of us, despite our bombing them for 12 years. Now the country is going to end up as a Lebanon, but with a hatred of the US instead of Israel. They will be breeding terrorists against us for years. Wait till you see what happens when they start using sophisticated weaponry.
-- Carl |
