That’s a fallacy. Terrorists congregate always, and therefore always present themselves as a military target. Finding them is obviously tricky. Intel and the military are inexorably intertwined.
While it’s true that we simply cannot carpet-bomb a country because a small faction of people attacked us from there, we can (and did) ascertain that a certain country might be a haven for people to construct plans against us, arm themselves and carry out such a plan.
Iraq is not the war on terror, as it were (and I agree that the phrase and it’s associated fear-mongering has jumped the shark due to politics), but terrorists DO exist and outside of some very precision assassinations by groups like the CIA, almost ALWAYS require the military’s assets.
There’s not much gettng around that. Diplomacy with some hate-filled groups is NEVER an option, no matter how much we wish it to be so.
And where is it written, this eternal truth? That “diplomacy” is “never an option”. Do you think the Troubles with the IRA were brought to an end by sheer force of armor?
But beyond that, you are excluding a huge amount of middle. My primary point is that our approach has exaggerated the military beyond all recognition, not that I advocate a complete and utter banishment of anything military. It is simply that such an effort has to be primarily an espionage, propaganda, and police intelligence matter. Its a war of snitches, spies, and skullduggery. An armored division is of no use in such a conflict.
When you are a hammer, you tend to see problems as nails, the foremost military power in the world will naturally gravitate towards military means to solve problems. In this particular instance, it is woefully inappropriate.
I agree with your sentiment vis a vis the hammer and nails argument, it’s much more nuanced than that. But your initial post earlier seemed to imply that it has to be all about skullduggery, when in fact that sometimes you have to call in the military option, whether that be special ops, a cruise missle or whatever. As long as you aren’t saying those options are off the table, then I’m not sure what you and I are arguing about.
But in the end, the “WOT” will always include the military, whether it be a large scale operation or a small one. It was always this way before the moniker of “WOT”, and it will be hence.
A thread in MPISM centered around changing one’s location tag to reflect a partisan enthusiasm for Himself. There’s a bunch of them, you may have noticed? Obamaha, NE, that sort of thing.
I have noticed (though I didn’t know about the MPISM thread). I figured the Llama thingy was just alliteration on your part…though I suppose it could be symbolic to (you as Obama’s Llama, manfully carrying his burdens here on the 'dope…that sort of thing).
I’m still waiting for the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty to be won. It’s just so easy to declare war, like I can just declare I want a Lamborghini.
I think we have won the War on Poverty. No, we haven’t eliminated poverty. We have done a pretty good job of hiding the poor, though. But that’s another thread. I don’t want to hijack my own thread anyway.
Huh. What’s the death count on the Clinton years versus the Bush years?
Good job on the “but Clinton” responses. Maybe you should change your user name? Think of how much time you could save with just typing “See username” in every political thread!
Well, the “The War and Other Actions Against Islamic Conquest and Terrorism” is long and contains the one thing no official wants to admit: It’s about Islam whether we like it or not.
When the topic is the different approaches taken by the various administrations (and please note that the Clinton Administration had some notable successes in this area, despite what I would consider an overall limited policy) I find your analogy of death numbers to be extremely misleading, given that we know that planning for 9/11 did begin in the Clinton administration, and indeed in those years al-Qaeda steadily gained power and was able to establish safe havens in both Somalia and Afghanistan.
All of this led directly to 9/11. Indeed, every single independent and congressional inquiry of intelligence and military policy surrounding these events has found something to fault in both administrations, given the history involved.
Unfortunately for your analogy, there is no mainstream Christianity which approves of such bombings, and certainly no such group in a position of power anywhere. Whereas the “Islamic World” has and mostly continues to be led by tyrants who do encourage terrorism as a political tool to harm their enemies. And they are such jerks that their enemies list contains nearly everybody.
I figured the Llama thingy was just alliteration on your part…though I suppose it could be symbolic to (you as Obama’s Llama, manfully carrying his burdens here on the 'dope…that sort of thing).