But no terrorist organization exists without the support of a nation state providing training, logistical support, and political/religious inspiration. Remove those supporting governmental entities and it's likely that large scale terrorist attacks will be severely curtailed, if not eliminated.. If only because no regime will be willing to risk being overthrown merely to launch a non-decisive attack upon the US and provoking a major retaliation.
Terrorist organizations don't need nation state support anymore than the illicit drug trade needs nation state support. It's convenient to have it, but not necessary. Terrorist organization need people, money and a black market arms trade.
RE: Libya, Iran, Pakistan and Syria.
Libya initially approached the US/Britain prior to the war in Iraq. Iran tried approaching the US shortly after Bush took office and it's far more likely that Pakistan and India are trying to play nice because they were on the verge of a nuclear conflict. Syria just told Israel to go pack sand.
Deterrence can be maintained at home when it involves convincing Al-Qaeda to concentrate their effort nearer their own base of operations...
Al-Quada does not have a base of operations, it's transnational and decentralized. They have trainging camps in Indonesia and the Phillipines that are doing quite nicely.
After all, those forces are trained for conventional war, not asymetric counter-insurgency within the homeland working in conjuunction with US law enforcement (which posse comitatus prohibits).
And Iraq is not currently a conventional war. US border security is a federal role and the DoD, DEA, ATF, Immigration all work with local law enforcement.
And wasn't Saddam supporting Islamic terrorism by guaranteeing the paying of $25,000 to Palestinian suicide bombers, thus further encouraging the dehumanization of an entire generation of Arab youth and turning them into terror weapons?
I suppose if you happen to believe that an Islamic fanatic that's willing to commit suicide is motivated by $25K that might be true. Than it would follow that now that Saddam is gone there has been a precipitous drop in terrorism.
And nowhere does Mr. Record discuss the cost of doing nothing to alter the previous power structure in the Mid-East, with its seemingly endless cycle of violence, racism, and corruption which were incredible obstacles to any positive socio-economic change in the region.
I suspect that's because Dr. Record doesn't propose doing nothing. What he does propose begins on page 41. There are some implicit things before that, so it would be best to start from the beginning.
I opine that the battle is actually one of hearts and minds
Looking at the worldwide changes of opinion that are now anti-US and a number of Muslim countries where the plurality believes that they "trust" OBL to do the right thing....I would say that a reasonable person would conclude that we are losing pretty badly.
So overall, I'd say that I would give Mr. Record a C- for his analytical effort and narrow scope of strategic vision.
Overall, I'd give you an F for failing to recognize the difference between rogue states and terrorist organizations; for failing to recognize that Al Qaeda is a transnational organization; for failing to recognize that a handful of terrorist are tying up nearly 200,000 coalition troops; for failing to recognize that we've created a US target for terrorists, for thinking that suicide bombers are motivated by cash and a variety of other things too numerous to mention.
jttmab |
