On 21 Mar 2006 at 7:32, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2006, at 6:38 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > >> > >> Iraq is to terrorists what a swamp is to mosquitos. We dry up the > >> swamp - > >> or at least some portion of it - by leaving. > > > > How much of a portion, however? Most of the groups active in Iraq > > have made it clear that they won't respect borders in what they see > > as an ideological struggle. > > ...and most of those groups aren't capable of operating beyond > borders. They're bandits.
That is...surmise. Certainly some of the current groups can't, but that doesn't mean that if they were willing that certain other factions wouldn't be willing to pay for them to go to the "great satan" and do attacks. And some of the groups can, but they chose not to simply because their leadership is quite happy to bleed expendable fighters for the cause relatively locally. Remove that, and they will have to look further afield, because the one they cannnot do is stop acting or they will be deposed by people who WILL act. > > > >>> AndrewC > >>> (Do remember, I'm Jewish, Zionist and have VERY strong views on the > >>> subject of terror) > >> > >> Then you should be against engaging in activites that have a > >> tendency to > >> increase the terrorist's numbers and increase their motivation to > >> attack > >> the West and eventually Israel as well. > > > > Israel is and isn't a different situation. > > That we know, but that's not the point Doug was making. > > Lesson learned: invading or militarily suppressing a territory > without any real strategy for rebuilding, or understanding of how the > various factions will act when let off the leash, PROMOTES terrorist > recruitment. That is your interpretation of the facts. Mine is that true ideologically-based terror does not care about national borders, that they will attack anyway - and if they can attack a source closer to their bases, then they will. > Continuing that action may make things worse, but it definitely won't > make it better. As Doug says, if the only result of staying is the > loss of more American lives, what's the point? Put those resources > into intelligence and military precision strike teams, and contain > the problem. Because in a democracy, that is a losing proposition. You cannot lock down terror at home without imposing the sort of measures which will alienate the voters so much that they will vote someone who ISN'T cracking down on them personally so much. > Compare with Iran: the same cycle has started. Staring down, gradual > ramping up of pressure. When historically, the only way that has kept > the region free of nukes (ignoring Israel's for the purposes of this > discussion as they're tactical weapons, not potential terror weapons) > has been standoff and tactical bombing or limited strike at specific > sites. Nation-states usually act more logically than Terrorists (excluding insane dictatorships), simply because they are an easily located physical entity. Even Iran's recent statements are really not so illogical if you consider the domestic situation. (Heck, look at America's Prohibition era for the sort of mess even a reprisentative Democracy can get into when it tries to impress allied countries with its morality) And well, this time the Iranians have deacent air defences. But nothing which could stop an Isralie long range missile with a conventional warhead. Wonder when.... (and as far as I and quite a few others are concerned, it pretty much IS when...) AndrewC _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
