The Middle East, with it's secular strife, has been a cluster**** for thousands of years. I agree that it may not have been the best of decisions to go in their militarily, however, once 9/11 happened, would couldn't afford to NOT go in there militarily in a substantive way.
The US didn't have a substantive response to our African embassies being bombed prior, and this lack of response begat the 9/11 attack. I shudder to think what a lack of response to 9/11 would have begat.
And you could go further back. Had not the tragedy of Black Hawk down in Somalia never happened, and the subsequent withdraw in the face of the Somali war lord's opposition, the perception of the US being weak may never have been started.
So 20/20 hindsight is always a losing game, and the situation is now what it is. Do we wait for major western countries to fall and / or come into major conflict with ISIS before we intervene? When ISIS's power is greater? Or do we try to preempt and thwart ISIS before they gain too much power? A difficult choice to make.
Fundamental tactics is to not fight on the ground and time of your enemy's choosing, but on the ground and timing of your choosing.
The only thing that gave the perception that we were weak was GW Bush who dropped the ball on Bin Laden and his plot.
We even caught one of the hijackers training to fly 2 weeks before 911 and Bush did nothing to warn the airlines. There will always be people who want to hurt us no matter what we do. The key is intelligence that can stop the attacks before they happen. Terrorist thrive on conflict and death, normal people not so much. We can't keep on playing "whack a mole" with the world. It is a very dangerous game.
I suppose it depends on which plot you are talking about. The one that came immediately mind was this:
- Bill Clinton, Hours Before 9/11 Attacks: 'I Could Have Killed' Osama bin Laden - ABC News
- Bill Clinton: "I could have killed" Osama bin Laden - CBS News
- Bill Clinton: 'I could have killed' Osama bin Laden in 1998 - LA Times
- Bill Clinton: I could have killed Osama bin Laden but didn
- Bill Clinton audio surfaces from Sept. 10, 2001: 'I could have killed' Osama bin Laden - Washington Times
- Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities - NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams | NBC News
You know, nipping the problem in the bud, before it grows larger and stronger, as it were.
Yeah, "whack a mole" isn't very productive. Probably need to be far more thorough, forceful, and deadly efficient without remorse, exactly as they are, unfortunately, except with better intel, weapons, and tactics.
And N Korea is set send an army marching off somewhere?North Korea, and even Iran to some extent, are similar pariah in the world, yet they have trading partners, though many times by extortion.
Expounding on your theory doesn't actually rebut our current sorry state of economic affairs which has included two massive wars.The US military is a Public-Private partnership that directly and especially indirectly employs or leads to the employment of tens of millions of Americans. For every 5 US military employees there are probably at minimum 20 US citizens somehow employed through contracts that wouldn't exist for their companies without US military sponsorship. Many Americans simply don't grasp this.
The truth is a great number of private sector US workers aren't actually private sector. Their companies exist thanks to business dealings with the US military.
So we topple ISIS and split.Quote me entirely, I said we need will as well.
The will to stick to the plan no matter what, not forge new ones out our ass like Iraq 2003.
So we topple ISIS and split.
Then what happens in these weapon-rich, war-torn areas full of orphans and other war-embittered people?
Seems that is pretty much the conditions which got us where we are today.
Your plan doesn't sound that much different than Rumsfeld's except you don't seem to be expecting Iraq to turn into a shining example of democracy 6 months afterward..
At least Clinton tried to get Bin Laden much to chagrin of Republicans who said it was wagging the dog at the time. The info released last year proved that Bush brushed off all reports of Al-Qaida activity as a hoax perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and refused to warn the airlines or anybody about the impending "attack from the air" that he received repeated warnings about.
I think your are dreaming if you think Americans will become SS storm troopers anytime soon. We are tired of useless expensive wars that make things worse. Drones that kill terrorist leaders are the best offense against them as it denies them the targets that they desire.
honestly i can give a flying **** if it turns into a democracy or not. I just want their faces in the sand enough for them to never be able to attack the U.S again.
As opposed to Clinton pretty much ignoring the problem? Yeah, figures that'd be your position. The 'Blame Bush' position. The reality is as it always is, and that's it took many hands and many actions to get to where we are. It's pretty useless, beyond petty partisanship, to try to blame any single president.
While I agree that drones seem to be the most effective, but it's like spraying Round Up on weeds. The weeds always come back at some point, and sometimes you have to actually pull the weeds out.
Rather presumptuous, that use of 'we', I think.
While I'm not saying that there isn't a war weariness in the nation, there is. What I am saying is that sometimes early engagement is the cheaper route, in terms of loss of life, financial commitment, better outcome, etc. than delaying engagement. The skill and wisdom is to recognize if the situation is one of these, to effectively marshal the needed support and resources, and to execute, limiting and controlling mission creep.
Something which only came to light in 2014 made us look weak 13 years ago?I suppose it depends on which plot you are talking about. The one that came immediately mind was this:
- Bill Clinton, Hours Before 9/11 Attacks: 'I Could Have Killed' Osama bin Laden - ABC News
- Bill Clinton: "I could have killed" Osama bin Laden - CBS News
- Bill Clinton: 'I could have killed' Osama bin Laden in 1998 - LA Times
- Bill Clinton: I could have killed Osama bin Laden but didn
- Bill Clinton audio surfaces from Sept. 10, 2001: 'I could have killed' Osama bin Laden - Washington Times
- Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities - NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams | NBC News
At least you admit you want us to act like the bad guys.Probably need to be far more thorough, forceful, and deadly efficient without remorse, exactly as they are, unfortunately, except with better intel, weapons, and tactics.
I think we, as the strongest military power in the world, should be using our military power to protect people from violence before any other duty. If we want to claim the moral high ground, then we ought to be intervening to save people from the massacres that ISIS is carrying out. Humanitarian intervention is one of the few reasons that fighting can be noble.
At least Clinton tried to get Bin Laden much to chagrin of Republicans who said it was wagging the dog at the time. The info released last year proved that Bush brushed off all reports of Al-Qaida activity as a hoax perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and refused to warn the airlines or anybody about the impending "attack from the air" that he received repeated warnings about.
I think your are dreaming if you think Americans will become SS storm troopers anytime soon. We are tired of useless expensive wars that make things worse. Drones that kill terrorist leaders are the best offense against them as it denies them the targets that they desire.
honestly i can give a flying **** if it turns into a democracy or not. I just want their faces in the sand enough for them to never be able to attack the U.S again.
Something which only came to light in 2014 made us look weak 13 years ago?
At least you admit you want us to act like the bad guys.
Often people suggest the same as you but then try to weasel out of having to call what they have suggested evil.
That wont happen unless we maintain a limited presence there, probably long term. It will be low-intensity.
Clinton let Bin Laden go.
So you want to "limit" terrorism by providing targets and recruiting slogans in their home countries? It is our continued meddling on their lands that is providing the fodder for their propaganda that we wish to destroy all Muslims.
He tried to get him at least. GW Bush forbid even the mentioning of his name lest it distract from his childish goal of ousting Saddam. Bush dropped the ball on Bin Laden and 911 was the result.
Possibly, but I would be personally more convinced for intervention if oil supplies are threatened.
What do you think a ME with MORE Iranian and Russian influence, as well as more terrorism will do to world oil supplies?
What do you think a ME with MORE Iranian and Russian influence, as well as more terrorism will do to world oil supplies?
More reason to reduce our oil consumption. Less US consumption = Less US vulnerability. Furthermore, the US's #1 export is refined oil products. Furthermore, the Russians themselves have a clear benefit of reducing Islamic terrorism given that they themselves have been the target many, many, many times. If you had any understanding of history (which you have demonstrated time and time again you do not), you'd know this. As for the Iranians, they are still screwed on the sanctions with only a few buyers, all of which are giving them exceptionally bad deals. Anyway, let them spend treasure and blood there. It's about time the US stop playing police man.
Your positions stem from a foundation of gross ignorance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?