After the failed Wazaristan treaty, it appears that NATO is at an impasse in Afghanistan (duh!). The top news story today is about another Al-Qaeda tape and attacks on the US with IEDs (dropped from the sky I suppose). Is this a build up to a change in strategy?
The Devil Inside: America was attacked by terrorists from Afghanistan. NATO is treaty-bound to defend her member by waging war in Afghanistan. SamCDKey: How would you suggest we defeat Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan?
And the Taliban didn't do anything to harm Afghani society? How does one just turn off an emotion like fear, Sam? And don't you think that the Afghani women are rather fearful of Taliban rule in their country? How do you tell those women to stop being afraid? Baron Max
Before 1993 the Taliban where having a civil war to gain control after the Russains withdrew in 1989. How does that last post represent an answer to the question of what you would suggest? Infact what do you think the change in policy will be?
Okay, Sam ....let's assume that every single problem in the world was caused by Americans, everything is their fault. Okay? Now ........now that we've settled that little problem, the present situation is the one that we're discussing, okay? What would you suggest that NATO do in Afghanistan ...NOW? Baron Max
America should pull out of Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan, which was our ORIGINAL mission we NEVER accomplished. Osama Bin Laden is still at large. Ayman Al-Zawahri is still at large. The Taliban is still active. Al Qaida in Afghanistan is still active. They caused 9/11 and what do we do? We let them go. What a great way to set an example for the War on Terror: "strike the heart of America and we'll disturb your base of power, but we'll let you live!!!"
I would suggest they should pull out, both from Afghanistan and Iraq, and invest all the money they are willing to spend on war on a trained anti- terrorist cell with 3 departments: 1. Field Work 2. Research 3. Public Relations The Field Work department is in charge of recruiting people for the purpose of getting information and keeping tabs on organisations involved in terrorist activities. The Public Relations department should be involved in getting those countries involved which are known to have terrorist bases in them, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and providing incentives for cooperation. The Research department should be involved in coordinating the efforts of both departments by verification of the facts and establishing future directions. Putting together an anti-terrorism organisation will do more to convince people that the US is genuinely interested in apprehending the terrorists and will eliminate radicalisation of people caught in the cross fire. That is what I would do. IMO, a week in the library saves months in the lab.
I can see two possible directions right now: 1. The Iraq war has been hugely unsuccessful and the government needs something drastic to distract the attention of the people. Now If I were an amoral government, I would do this very simply by recreating what started the whole thing: i.e. a terrorist attack. But everyone knows that Al-Qaeda has been fragmented and lost its strength. So I would need to revive the group. A video is a good way to do it. After all can anyone tell when it was made and by whom? 2. Iran is a much wanted next target for the present administration. A connection between Iran and al-Qaeda would give credence to a global conspiracy against the US. So I'd look out either for: 1. another terrorist attack, presumably by al Qaeda. 2. Some connection between al Qaeda and Iran. The second one also has the advantage of putting the Sauds on their guard and willing to cooperate fully with the US, as well as eliminate any risk to the dollar (since Iran is converting all its oil earnings to euros in anticipation of being able to shift the oil currency).
So, how do we eliminate the fear (as you wrote in an earlier post), we run. Sam, that comes from the same instinct to survive. We cannot eliminate fear from our instincts because we are wired to survive. Survival requires one of two things: Fight or Flight. The world is not ready to simply co-exist with everyone having different beliefs and ideas. And, it won't happen until everyone realizes the gift of freedom. As long as freedom is not a global policy, there will be wars. Bottom line, Sam. You, and everyone who thinks like this, are just as gripped by fear as you say those who condone fighting are. You just simply deny it.
So we pull out, and still risk another attack. I thought the whole point was that we were creating more terrorism due to our presence. Yet, if we leave, we still should be on the lookout for another terrorist attack. I think I will stick to the idea that I would rather fight them on a battleground than in the streets of America (which by the way is happening on a very small scale anyway). Great logic, makes a whole lot of sense to me!!
Ruled by fear? You guys are way beyond paranoid. If a video will have you pissing your pants, you need to figure out where you left your balls.