Uncle, You make good sense. You could also, however, have listed the Russian mob, the Mafia, the neo-Nazis, prison gangs, and a lot of other threats. So yes, there are a lot of threats out there but the question is how to effectively "counterattack" such hidden and shadowy groups.
You said that counterattack began on 9/12. If that's true then how would you judge the overall success of our counterattack strategies? In your post you write:
"We have demonstrated to the world that we can use your preferred technique and walk softly when we get cooperation. Libya and Lebanon are 2 recent examples.
We have also shown the world we can still apply "the big stick" when appropriate.
War is an art, not a hard science. I believe our leaders are doing a reasonable job in a tumultuous and rapidly changing situation.
I agree with you in part. I've stated that I believed that the initial moves in Afghanistan were appropriate. I think we demonstrated the "big stick" there but that to continue the offense in Iraq was, and is, terribly counterproductive.
And I still say that, even given your list, from an American point of view we were dealing with a "handful" of zealots. By our actions in Iraq we've created more men who share their views and passion, more populations that support them rabidly, and we've created a climate in the countries where they reside which makes it virtually impossible for us to effectively find and counter them. In effect, we've grown a jungle for them to hide in.
Re: Nobody predicted a foreign state-sponsored insurgency, after the fall of Saddam.
Despite the claims of Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney and Bush, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the insurgency in Iraq is dependant upon foreign state sponsorship. There were too many weapons throughout the country, too many stockpiles that were readily looted and too many personal arms for us to have reasonably believed that the tools to fight us would not be there. In addition, given the "sacred religious duty" of all Muslims to use force to aid a brother Muslim in repelling infidels, we should have known that there would be men, money and arms coming in from neighboring Muslim populations. So I would say that "nobody" wasn't doing a very smart job of thinking and planning.
Finally, your last paragraphs indicate that it is time to stop bitching and get on board to support our leaders. That assumes that they're not taking us over the cliff. I think they are. I also believe that we're not yet at a point of no return and that it is our duty as free citizens with the right to influence and change the course of our leaders, or change our leaders, to speak out strongly.
In my view Sitting back and crying in our teacups hoping the bad guys will all go home and leave us alone is not an option, should read;
"Sitting back and loyally trusting our leaders while the health and lives of our soldiers, our critical resources, and our leadership of the civilized world are squandered when we should be finding effective ways to fight the bad guys is not an option."
Like you Uncle, I'm a fighter. Many times I've fought with my fists, with my words, and, during the debacle that was the Vietnam war, with lethal arms. I will fight for what I believe and I believe in this great country. When I fight, however, I want to fight for the right things, I want to fight the right people and I damn sure want to win. Because losing is not an acceptable option.
That's why its not enough to "just do something." We have to get it right but the current people in the Bush Administration are dogmatic thinkers, or "magical" thinkers, who are getting it way wrong. I refuse to support people or leaders, I support effective policies. I respect your views but I can't agree with them. Ed |
