Thoughts and comments from a rational perspective on political, social, and cultural events.
Good article. Here's the crux of the matter: But if Mr. Obama decides to send more troops, the most important thing is not the number. It is his commitment to see it through. Will Obama step up and become Commander-in-Chief? I wonder ... so far it's been nothing but amateur hour at the White House.
Just to pull a few things that jumped out at me. First, he starts the article off by reminding us how in danger we are!! Mentioning the guy was an Afgan immigrant to boot! However did you notice this when talking about his bomb making skills?"...He allegedly learned how to do so on a training visit to Pakistan."But I thought we needed to send more troops to Afg to stop guys like this man (who has lived basically his whole live in the US!!)?Are we to invade Pakistan too? He talks about the many fronts of this 'war', citing the most 'active front',"Third, the newest and maybe most active front in this war is not Afghanistan, but the “virtual Afghanistan” — the loose network of thousands of jihadist Web sites, mosques and prayer groups that recruit, inspire and train young Muslims to kill without any formal orders from Al Qaeda."How exactly is sending MORE troops over to Afg killing more of them and us in the process going to battle this most 'active front'? The majority of that country does not even have access to the internet - and most of the people who have been stopped in thier plots to attack, like the young man mentioned in the article (who GREW UP IN THE UNITED STATES!) are not people that any amount of troops in Afg would/could ever prevent.And finally, he is honest in one point,"So, what President Obama is actually considering in Afghanistan is shifting from a “war on terrorists” there to a “war on terrorism,” including nation-building."We have d-evolved in to a country that is so arrogant to believe that we can send a hundred thousands heavily armed military troops in to a backwards, third-world, 'country' of tribal rule and build something that has never existed there before. It's not possible - and it does not make us safer.I will say it again, GTFO.
Six, you make some good points regarding Zazi. And I agree that war should be undertaken only for excellent reasons (like having been attacked and being under threat of further attacks).We civilians can't see the whole picture, of course. Only the president and his closest advisors get daily security briefings, and much of what they know can't be made public--at least not as it's happening. But here's what we do know: - bin Laden and his cohorts have mostly operated from the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan - the administration has been using diplomacy to ensure cooperation from both countries - Al Qaida and the Taliban operate terrorist training camps in both countries - the object of that training is to teach young people to kill--especially, to kill Americans.Ignoring that part of the world would be like ignoring a malignant tumor and hoping it will go away. To extend an ugly metaphor a little further, just going after known terrorists, like Zazi, when they're trained and building bombs in the U.S. is like ignoring the main tumor and only excising those that have spread to other organs. The problem must be addressed at its source.I'm not in favor of war, either. But sometimes, it's necessary.
Post a Comment