DMC: You’re right - you did post a long detailed strategy, and it deserves a thoughtful reply. My apologies for missing that earlier.
Here we go:
It’s hard to separate the philosophy from the actors. It’s like saying we weren’t at war with Fascism in WWII, just with Germany and its allies. While technically true, it’s impossible to seperate them. When radical Islam supports the concept of global jihad, and radical Islamists pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the global jihadist movement, and radical Islamists give speeches which incite their followers to violence, and when everyone who is trying to kill you happens to be a radical Islamist, then it’s tough to say that we’re not fighting radical Islam.
This is naive in the extreme. First, Pakistan is hardly cooperating fully with the U.S. in this regard. They’re like Saudi Arabia - allies in name, but with factions inside their own government that work against each other. When it’s clear that there are large segments of the country in which al-Qaida is allowed to operate relatively unhindered, just how do you expect to arrest them?
And in fact, ‘collateral damage’ IS an accepted concept even in our own countries. Every time there is a high-speed chase or a gun battle with crooks there is a chance that innocents will be killed. Just ask the fine people of Waco Texas.
This is true, and an undesirable consequence of the tactics we are forced to use. There’s no denying that every effort should be made to minimize collateral damage, and it would be wonderful if al-Qaida just met us on a big battlefield somewhere. And if wishes were horses, we’d all be eating steak.
Pakistan is an unreliable ally, and it is treated as such. When they are cooperative, we defer to them. The U.S. has done much to aid Musharref and help keep him in power. But when they are unable to unwilling to take action, and action is necessary, then that’s the way it goes.
But in fact, the way this game is played is that Pakistan IS cooperating in this way: Musharref can not sanction attacks within his own country. So he plays a game where the Pakistani government and military looks the other way while America does the dirty work. Then they issue a condemnation in the ‘strongest terms’, but without any actual consequences. This is the reality of politics in the region. If Pakistan REALLY objected to what the U.S. was doing, it could light up U.S. planes with anti-aircraft radar, fire a few shots across the bow, threaten to close the U.S. embassy, or any number of other actions. It doesn’t. This is all political theater.
These were combatants collected on a battlefield by soldiers, not police officers. There’s no chain of evidence, no police procedures. These people cannot be tried in a court of law. So your answer is to just let them all go? Or should we stop after every battle and sift the battlefield for evidence? Every time an enemy combatant is captured perhaps the capturing soldiers should stop and read him his Miranda rights, fingerprint him, take statements from all the witnesses, and take his mug shot? Oh, and don’t forget to pull the soldier out of combat when the trial comes up, so he can identify the bad guy on the stand and say, “Yep, that’s the guy that shot at me.”
Your way of doing things devolves into capturing people on the battlefield and just rotating them right back into the conflict. Is that what you really want?
You’re assuming that they’ve been ‘wronged’. Just how many people in Guantanamo do you think are really there without having done anything wrong?
Do you have any idea what it would take to hold formal trials for everyone captured in battle? The whole notion is utterly ridiculous.
Some examples, please? The U.S. military just gathers people up on the streets? I hadn’t heard about that.
Sure. And calling real terrorists ‘freedom fighters’ or ‘insurgents’ does the same thing. I’d prefer that we label everyone with as accurate a term as possible. This is, however, a trivial issue. FWIW, I haven’t heard many people call insurgents who limit their attacks to legitimate military targets ‘terrorists’, and in fact the U.S. military has been quite specific in separating the two groups. For example, they have been extending numerous olive branches to actual insurgents who want to join the political process.
I agree 100%, and the fact that the current administration would exclude translators, who are very short supply, based on their sexual preference, is disgusting.
I think we ARE the good guys. I think we’re in a very difficult situation, and doing the best we can.
And I think Bush is the most honest about this as any leader the U.S. has had for a long time. It’s just that the other side is full of conspiracy theorists and nutbars who refuse to believe a thing he says. U.S. policy used to be mealymouthed because of realpolitik, in which presidents would have to say nice things about ruthless dictators because they supported them for the sake of ‘stability’. Bush is the first president to break with that policy and overtly support democracy even if it makes things unstable in the short term. He should be praised for that, rather than tarred with various ridiculous Halliburton/Carslyle Group conspiracy theories.
Not me, because I think it’s very healthy to have a viable opposition. You really want Republicans acting like they can never be replaced?
I’d rather be right AND win. Which is why I support what I do.
Yeah yeah. Diebold, stolen elections, yada yada yada. What this has to do with war on terror is beyond me. Nice talking points, though.
Yeah, the Republican Guard in Iraq would have been a big help. And I’m sure the Mukhbarat is just itching to go arrest some Pakistani citizens for the U.S. While we’re at it, let’s get the Saudi religious police up to speed with a few episodes of ‘CSI: Riyadh’, and we can all live in peace and harmony and arrest all the bad guys. Because lord knows, none of those organizations have conflicting interests with the United States.
And what if the ‘root cause’ of terrorism is a fanatic, fascist ideology that believes that women should be oppressed, homosexuals stoned to death, heretics killed, books banned, and a radical Islamic orthodoxy spread through the world by the sword? I mean, just for the sake of argument, what if that’s the case? Do you have a fallback plan?
