SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: carranza2 who wrote (42094)5/8/2004 9:38:40 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) of 793757
 

The reality of things is very different, I think, since we are seeing a large number of semi-autonomous groups who do not take direct guidance from AQ, and may have no connection at all to it other than parallel ideological goals, which are creating a lot of havoc.

This is not relevant to my point. We are stuck with a choice between violating the territorial integrity of an ally, a move that could bring down a government that we badly need to keep in power, or ceding a large safe haven to our enemies. Whether those enemies are AQ per se or a large number of semi-autonomous groups is not important: the Pakistanis will not be able to dislodge them, and if we try to do it ourselves we create a far larger mess.

America would do well not to focus too exclusively on AQ and Osama. That was yesterday’s enemy. The terrorists we should fear most are the ones whose pictures are not on Bush’s desk.

The terror web is spreading, but that is not surprising after the war in Afghanistan lanced the boil, spreading the disease everywhere.

The terror web is indeed spreading, less because of anything that happened in Afghanistan than because American policies and the words and attitudes that accompany those policies have created an environment conducive to the spread of Islamic extremism. We should not assume that we are safe just because we've flexed our muscles and kicked some butt. The opposite is more likely to be the case.

We chose not to deal with SA and Pakistan because the options are severely limited.

Are you suggesting that we ignore our most serious problems because they are not easy to manage? Options were limited in Iraq, too. We chose to put Iraq first, not because it was a bigger problem but because our government thought it politically necessary to use large-scale force somewhere, and Iraq was the only place where this particular option – the one we wanted to use – was available. Instead of moving on to the next tier of problems and using our considerable resources to develop strategies, we chose a politically driven strategy and looked for a place where we could use it.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext