Tweet
You also have multiple people involved in single attacks. It is not a "one terrorist=one attack" situation. There have been reports of hundreds of terrorist gunmen involved in some altercations.
So you are asserting that at least 10,000 (if that's just from Pakistan alone) terrorists have been carrying out attacks in Iraq? IIRC, there have been something like 3,000 terror attacks since 9/11 worldwide. I'd imagine if there were that many terrorists there would be quite a bit more than that. Even if hundreds were involved in each plot.
While it is true that Saudi's are not directly linked to funding terrorist, the break between what they are doing and funding terrorist is incredibly small.
Do you believe that that is their goal? I doubt it. Of course, it is easiest to pick up from the radicals, but terrorist fanatics only tend to hurt the Saudis because most of them tend to dislike governments like the one Saudi Arabia has... and have the aim of overthrowing them (which is why us getting rid of Saddam was a bit ironic, because AQ didn't hide that secular leaders like Hussein should be deposed).
While all radicals are certainly not violent, I believe that it is safe to assume that all violent muslims are radical.
So? The question becomes what has led these places to become radicalized. It isn't simply because the Saudis started setting up a bunch of schools... because people had to send their kids to those schools. Why did people think these ideologies were worthwhile to teach to their children? Why did they reject the nationalist/socialist tendencies of current leadership like Bhutto in Pakistan?
However, we are not the only object of hate. There are islamic radicals doing violent things in both China and Russia and they were strongly opposed to the Iraq war.
I'm not sure if you've heard of Chechnya or how China tends to treat religious groups
.Sure some are going to want to fight no matter what, but it isn't like they are enough by themselves. They need people to join the cause in order for them to do anything at all.
the Sunni backed by AQ and the Shia backed by Iran will fight to determine which one ofthem gets the right to carry the war further. It will not stop there if one of them attains dominance. It will simply shift and they will have the power of a state behind them then.
Because Iran has done a whole lot in "carry[ing] the war further"? They've done a bunch of proxy wars and rattled sabers. Remember, Iraq invaded them. And Sunnis are divided among AQ fighters and nationalists, and I think the nationalists are in much greater numbers than AQ.
Frankly, I disagree with this 'domino' effect (as I think the communist domino effect has been discredited). They'll want to assert themselves on the world stage after civil war, but they aren't going to get much further. If anything they'll do proxy wars by funding groups against Israel.
How long will that take? What will the terrorist be doing while we try to do this? What would be our response if a terrorist organization popped a nuke in Cairo to take down a government that was co-operating with the infidels? It is easy to scoff at that question until one thinks back to Russian nuclear security in the 90's, or Iran's rush to enrichment, or DPRK's unknown nuclear stocks. Hell, we can't even tell you where all the enriched uranium from Savanah River is.
The fear mongering over Iran's rush to enrichment is silly. North Korea, also, I'm sure has a nuke. Neither will use any in the future as they are far less irrational as have been portrayed.
I think the tactic may take far less time than enemies of diplomacy may believe. And Hell, it'll probably make less people go the route of terrorists. Smaller interdiction teams, air strikes against camps (with the support of the host country) would do far, far better than being camped out in a country where the US isn't wanted and is the focus for everyone as long as the troops are there.
Better to watch from the outside and contain. If intelligence provides us, make targeted strikes. All the while get on the better side of states like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, whose bridges we have burned recently... in order to allow said tactics to work.
Being an occupying country, and a better recruiting tool, does not really have a long term strategy for success. I mean what is the long term strategy? Keep invading countries if they start getting weird? Start a draft in order to wage these constant wars?
Comment