GET IT RIGHT
(This is a letter I wrote to the editor of the Albany Democrat Herald. It's for the public to get it right, not the editor. He's okay!)
Dear Editor: Your good summary (ed. 9/7/06) of our terrorism struggle asks the crucial question: "what choices do we have?" As you point out, "the fight is not against foreign armies or countries." So references to old wars, cold or hot, don't help much here.
As to choices, wouldn't that depend on our over-all strategy? If our plan remains to just capture and kill terrorists (important as that is), as we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, then we must ask not only about the results vs. costs ratio, but whether we can, in fact, kill them faster than they can replace their losses. If not, it's a losing situation, but it can go on for years. No better outcome than we are seeing now appears likely in either country, no matter how long we stay.
The Taliban is back in strength in Afghanistan. And that country's pretend government is riddled with corruption (as is Iraq's), and ruled by warlords. If our plan was to "democratize" the Middle East, that's not going to happen. Islam is theocratic.
And since the search and destroy plan includes killing huge numbers of innocents (as in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq), it is guaranteed to inflame and alienate ever larger numbers of Muslims all over the world. There must be a better way to go!
A different strategy might seek meaningful conversations with countries like Syria and Iran, who sponsor terrorists as we sponsor Israel. Believe me, the latter is a terrorist nation in the eyes of the Muslim world -- all of it! (If you doubt that, surf the Muslim blogs and press.)
Both Syria and Iran shared important intelligence with us after 9/11, and sought talks with us,
which we refused. That was a bad mistake. We could also put sufficient pressure on Israel (we
give them $3 billion a year) to end their illegal (criminal) occupation of Palestine (which is a root cause of Islamist terrorism in the first place.) Until that quarrel is settled fairly with an agreement everyone can live with, there will be no end of terrorism, period. The one thing that unites all the Muslim terrorists, in spite of their own bitter hatreds and divisions, is their mutual rage against Israel. (And our support for Israel.)
A real strategy, it seems to me, would include political, economic, diplomatic, cultural, educational, and other elements aimed at winning those priceless "hearts and minds" we hear so much about, but do so little to win, and so much to repel. If we win that battle, we win the other one as well (assuming we continue to refine our intelligence and policing skills.) If we lose
that battle, we can forget about winning the other one. It's as simple as that. And as deadly.
If we fail to win over for peace the bulk of the Muslim world, we can expect sooner or later, to see the nukes Saddam was supposed to have. Someone like Osama will have them. One will come in a ship probably, or by a rocket launched 100 miles at sea. We have some time to get it
right, but not a lot. Let's pray it's enough.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
(This is a letter I wrote to the editor of the Albany Democrat Herald. It's for the public to get it right, not the editor. He's okay!)
Dear Editor: Your good summary (ed. 9/7/06) of our terrorism struggle asks the crucial question: "what choices do we have?" As you point out, "the fight is not against foreign armies or countries." So references to old wars, cold or hot, don't help much here.
As to choices, wouldn't that depend on our over-all strategy? If our plan remains to just capture and kill terrorists (important as that is), as we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, then we must ask not only about the results vs. costs ratio, but whether we can, in fact, kill them faster than they can replace their losses. If not, it's a losing situation, but it can go on for years. No better outcome than we are seeing now appears likely in either country, no matter how long we stay.
The Taliban is back in strength in Afghanistan. And that country's pretend government is riddled with corruption (as is Iraq's), and ruled by warlords. If our plan was to "democratize" the Middle East, that's not going to happen. Islam is theocratic.
And since the search and destroy plan includes killing huge numbers of innocents (as in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq), it is guaranteed to inflame and alienate ever larger numbers of Muslims all over the world. There must be a better way to go!
A different strategy might seek meaningful conversations with countries like Syria and Iran, who sponsor terrorists as we sponsor Israel. Believe me, the latter is a terrorist nation in the eyes of the Muslim world -- all of it! (If you doubt that, surf the Muslim blogs and press.)
Both Syria and Iran shared important intelligence with us after 9/11, and sought talks with us,
which we refused. That was a bad mistake. We could also put sufficient pressure on Israel (we
give them $3 billion a year) to end their illegal (criminal) occupation of Palestine (which is a root cause of Islamist terrorism in the first place.) Until that quarrel is settled fairly with an agreement everyone can live with, there will be no end of terrorism, period. The one thing that unites all the Muslim terrorists, in spite of their own bitter hatreds and divisions, is their mutual rage against Israel. (And our support for Israel.)
A real strategy, it seems to me, would include political, economic, diplomatic, cultural, educational, and other elements aimed at winning those priceless "hearts and minds" we hear so much about, but do so little to win, and so much to repel. If we win that battle, we win the other one as well (assuming we continue to refine our intelligence and policing skills.) If we lose
that battle, we can forget about winning the other one. It's as simple as that. And as deadly.
If we fail to win over for peace the bulk of the Muslim world, we can expect sooner or later, to see the nukes Saddam was supposed to have. Someone like Osama will have them. One will come in a ship probably, or by a rocket launched 100 miles at sea. We have some time to get it
right, but not a lot. Let's pray it's enough.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
posted by John Goodwin at
9:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home