After the 9/11 attacks, there was a worldwide outpouring of sympathy for the US and opposition to terrorism. A US-led coalition then invaded Afghanistan with broad domestic and international support.
After that, the Bushies have pursued a counter-terrorism strategy that raises some questions. At Tora Bora they let Osama bin Laden slip out rather than pressing home the attack. They have thus far been reluctant to pursue Al Qaeda and the Taliban into Pakistan, despite the fact that these groups have gone far in reconstituting their organizations in the lawless border regions there.
When the Iranians offered to help, they were rebuffed, weakening the moderates, strengthening the anti-US hard-liners and paving the way for the election of anti-Amerucan radical Ahmadinejad. cite All the nuances of Iranian politics are ignored rather than manipulated with clever back-door diplomacy.
The Bushies pushed through the invasion and occupation of Iraq even though Saddam Hussein was not a radical Islamist and was keeping a lid on them, thus creating a power vacuum where terrorist groups can thrive. (I compare this to fighting the weeds in your vegetable garden by ripping up the sod from your lawn.)
Did they really think that virtually all Islamic terrorists would flock to Iraq and meet their deaths in the ongoing battles there? Or that planting democracy there would result in democracy and moderation sweeping the Middle East and quickly sapping all support for terrorist groups? Are these goals not mutually exclusive? And are either of them remotely realistic? Are they over-reliant on moderate Muslims or overly dismissive of them? Conservatives have certainly show across-the-board hostility to Muslims as of late.
If there’s one thing Muslims can’t stand above all else is when Westerners intervene in their part of the world and the humiliation that goes along with it. Did the Bushies somehow not know this? Anyone could have predicted that they’d quickly overlook the removal of Saddam and see the occupation of Iraq as part of a pattern confirming that the West is trying to destroy Islam—and react accordingly.
They seem convinced that that last ounce of militaristic posturing is the key to solving the problem, and yet it’s mostly vague and directionless. Do they even see it as a problem to be solved, however partially, or is just a matter of “fighting”, even if it’s with gasoline. They appear oblivious to the concept of provocation or reaction to perceived threats, but are obsessed with the concept of non-appeasement. We’re going to non-appease the terrorists to death and the other Muslims will love us for it. Is that the plan?
But most of their effort goes toward excoriating Democrats, liberals, and Europeans for wanting to help the terrorists take over our government and take away our freedom—or worse, sing “kum-ba-ya” with them.
Now I don’t think the conservative strategy is to kill 200 times as many Muslims as Hitler killed Jews, but they seem to be painting us into that particular corner.
So again, what exactly is the strategy and how can it be shown to be succeeding?
