If the two primary/common goals of MENA based militants (and their financiers) are removing American troops from the MENA region and cutting off support for local regimes, then is a bombing campaign on mainland US a viable tactic?
The age old and major problem exists however: military campaigns tend to rally people to their current government- regardless of domestic issues. In this case the US government was actually recently re-ratified, by majority popular vote as well. Does this indicate an even higher likelihood to rally?
One way they could counteract this is through an expressed and committed policy against direct civilian casualties. The IRA and Basque separatists get/got decent moral “traction” through phone-in warnings. Though I would personally suggest merely being very careful with target selection, there is a lot of un-manned infrastructure in North America- there is NO excuse in my opinion for not selecting those targets. This would also make obvious the need for large numbers of US troops on the ground back home, to guard said infrastructure.
Perhaps the dove-ish approach is called for however. Funding of domestic US militants might be the safer approach, especially * vis a vis* “blowback” to MENA countries. This could be of two kinds as well. There is the obvious but probably wrong-headed concept of funding militants of an isolationist bent. Given the American psyche it would probably be more effective to fund some “kill all the foreigner” type groups.
So hawk or dove, what’s the best policy for MENA militants? Probably a combination?
Well, Iraq has shown that overthrowing the U.S. government will be easy Winning the peace will be the problem.
Iraq, 25 million people, would have required what, 500,000 ground troops? 1 troop per 50 people?
U.S., 300 million people, therefore gonna take 6 million ground troops. Far from impossible. 1 million from Europe, 1 million from Russia, 1.5 million India, 1.5 million China, 1 million from the rest of the Middle East, Far East and Indonesia.
Bombing the U.S. is a very bad idea. It may unleash the nuclear genie. It will CERTAINLY give U.S. leaders carte blanche and a clear call from citizens to bomb the hell out of an Middle Eastern country or countries they want, and to invade any they want. Very, very, very bad idea. Which is why I think someone will try it. The more we learn about the Middle East, the less its leaders and peoples look like Einsteins.
This is a parody thread, isn’t it? I suppose you’re trying to get a rise out of people. Good luck!
Anyway, to answer your question, no - I think attacks on U.S. soil would be a poor strategy. Americans are capable of incredible violence, and there are no three military forces in the world who together can match their destructive capabilities, not to mention one terrorist org. I suppose one can attack the U.S., take a Dresden-scale retaliation and then appeal to the rest of the world for sympathy, but this ignores the fact that America doesn’t really have to care what the rest of the world thinks, and under the circumstances, probably won’t.
They can’t figure out a way to get those troops across the 70 miles of water dividing China from Taiwan; how woud they get them across the Pacific Ocean? A similar question applies to any other country mentioned here.
From reports I had while the Cold War was still on, of silos with covers open, half full of rainwater, and reports after the cold war of US exaggeration of threat… maybe one on twenty of those missiles will be functional and accurate. This doesn’t help much, does it?
Frankenstein Monster I never made any suggestion that a foreign power should try to occupy the United States, nor did I make any comment on the morality of US foreign policy. So maybe, don’t be so silly?
My question is based purely on what seems their current capabilities: raising cash and planning bombings or acts of sabotage.
Evil Captor:
Yes, well I addressed the point of “blowback”. Remember that though it is an issue, I’m sure, with regards to fund raising and popularity- MENA militant groups don’t tend to be restricted to national borders. Heavy handed responses may not directly hurt the groups involved. Many would say that the current admin has something close to carte blanche already… regardless of how wrong that may be. If the “nuclear genie” is let out, how will American industry face the oil price explosion? So this point could be considered a wash with regards to deciding whether to strike.
And no Alessan, it is not a parody thread (though the other current thread made me feel free to post this one). Intellectual curiousity whether a pack of mice could change the direction of an elephant (sort of thing). I am not one to advocate violence but the boat has apparently long sailed on this particular subject.
None of you wanted to actually shoot down paragraph 3 and 4 of the OP?
I should point out that the “point” wouldn’t be to get the US to formally “surrender” anything- just drag US money & troops out of the MENA region back home.
I guess the “super dove” MENA militant position would be to let the US bleed out a substantial bit in Iraq and hope they don’t have the stomach for long or more afterwards…
If you’re serious, and if it really, really… REALLY came down to it, I believe there are more people here that would just say fuck it, and would have no problem what so ever with bombing the fuck out of the threatening country. I believe Isoroku Yamamotos purported words still hold true today. If such a thing happened, no ones life will ever be the same (yes, world wide) because that is what will happen, WWIII.
What’s to shoot down about #4? Could that not happen? It would be VERY un-PC to agree with #4 in todays world. I realize this. But if the U.S. were in a large scale war that included large scale land invasions. Funding militia groups to target the people that are targeting America could likely happen. I’m not saying it’s a good decision, but it could happen. The only thing that can be said about #4 is that it’s a bad thing. And it is. Saying that it could not happen however… We are young in our government, anything is possible. Even if it’s un-PC.
Except of course that the militants are not a government or a country. In fact such a response would likely make even more people in the MENA support you, leading to greater anti american sentiment, and more pressure on the other governments of the MENA region to kick US troops out. Plus of course it could get you more recruits. If the targets chosen are unmanned, and the people who carry them out not linked to any government, then it is likely the international community would condemn the retaliation as well, leading to the further isolation of the US.
I meant shoot down as a useful tactic- I see by your post that you agree it could indeed be useful. I would not think that the US government could actually be destabilized in this manner- the current foreign policy thrust might be shaken though. I’m pretty much leaving morality of the tactic untouched- this is a Machiavellian thread, if you please.
if u really want to invade America, you are much better off attacking the country using the Internet. Get access to AOL ID information, then execute massive and untraceable identity fraud.
Winning the peace will be the problem.