A serious question for anyone who is listening
The subject says it all. So here goes:
Is there anyone out there who thinks that the “War on Terror” can be won via military means? If so, please comment.
-W.
posted by William H. Harwood at 11:34 PM
2 Comments:
For a while, I thought that’s what was happening. The Taliban were utterly devastated by our invasion of Afghanistan. We set up a government. We made the capitol a decent place to live. We were rounding up Al-Qaeda. We were making real progress. Then like Hitler and the Battle for Brittan, we suddenly turned around!! All our resources concentrated on Iraq. Afghanistan left the mainstream media and unlike with West Germany & Japan after WWII, we left the job half done.
Now Afghanistan is a backwater. Taliban have become insurgents and there is still serious fighting in this country. Lets assume for the moment our government had compelling evidence linking weapons of mass destruction with Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Iraq was a stable country. Whatever happened in Iraq happened with Saddam's knowledge and approval. And Saddam wasn't about to go into hiding so we could happily find him any time we needed. Link to Al-Qaeda or not, there was no imminent danger coming from Iraq. We could have finished the job in Afghanistan and THEN worried about the war in Iraq.
I believe there can and there must be a military solution to this problem. But for it to be successful, it must be a SMART military solution. Simply throwing more bombs, tanks, troops into the situation will be about as effective as airdropping $2 trillion in unmarked twenties over Iraq. But a military might alone will not solve the problem. We need to raise the quality of life and provide Afghanistan (and now Iraq) with the means to sustain themselves economically and grow.
Looks like it's just you and me, pal.
One addendum: The question is not whether there is a military solution to Iraq. The question is whether the War on Terror will be won by military means, similar to the question whether the War on Drugs will be won by increased law inforcement or the War on Poverty by Welfare Reform. The situation is not unlike the Cold War, in which those who suggested diplomatic rather than military means to solve conflicts (e.g., General Eisenhower in his celebrated closing address) were deemed unrealistic cowards who misunderstood the threat and gave comfort to the enemy.
It is quite interesting, however, that you seem to have equated the two. Maybe you've been in DC for too long; the administration's rhetoric is seeping into your brain.
Post a Comment
<< Home