>>Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.<<
Bob -
There seem to be some items missing from the list of successful attacks since 2001.
Right away, I noticed that the blogger omitted any reference to Daniel Pearl, whose kidnapping and videotaped beheading in 2002 would seem to qualify as a terrorist attack. I'm guessing there are others he missed. And of course, he completely ignores successful attacks on our soldiers, reporters, and contractors in Iraq.
I do agree that attacking Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban disrupted Al Qaeda's activities, and took away a major support structure from them. I always approved of that action. I just wish we had finished it.
Among the list of things that "may" have prevented attacks, I see that Intel and law enforcement rank pretty high.
I can see no way in which invading Iraq made us safer.
I also can't give credit to the Bush Administration for "skillful diplomacy". The Saudis took care of their terrorists because it was in their interest to do so.
I wonder if anyone here has mentioned a new book written by the man who was supposedly Osama bin Laden's Islamic mentor. I heard about it on NPR, but don't have the details. The man has decided that the violent tactics he formerly espoused are anti-Islamic as well as being counter-productive. This is part of a growing movement among the most radical Islamists questioning the interpretation of jihad they have been using.
Does anyone have the title of this book, or the author's name?
In any case, it's quite possible that Islamic terrorism will be destroyed not by us, but from within.
- Allen |
