We cannot pull out of Iraq but I do not believe we have provided
adequate resources to turn over every single rock in Afghanistan
and Pakistan or wherever else it is needed.

I think our mistake is trying to be everybody's buddy. There are
some dangerous folks out there and they need to keep away from
Americans who need to do their jobs. I am not so interested in
training the foreign nationals as I am interested in routing out terrorists.

Infiltrating may be today's approach, but that is scary. You can only
get so much information. I'd prefer to set up a net at one end of the
country and then move in there with the proper equipment and just
sweep straight forward.

For townspeople, I would warn them to get out of the way or prepare
to die. Sorry, but this other tattle-tale way is just not working.

Joel


PS- Condoleeza Rice will not be calling me any time soon.

__________________

Yes, those free fire zones worked so well in Vietnam that we should do the same thing in Afghanistan. Maybe we can move them all into strategic hamlets.

I just finished the biography of Pol Pot and the entire Southeast Asia deal
is another story. Again, our government was not forthcoming with its
citizens. Half the country never questioned the government though.

That said, the hills of Afghanistan are different. The populations are different.
If this is not do-able then we need another strategy. But it seems to me
that the country that fought and won two world wars has the ability to
route out a small bunch of miscreants.

Joel

__________________

But thats the problem- its not a single small bunch of miscreants. Al Queda is not a top down command structure. Its an archipelago of loosly affiliated religious extremists form all over the world. You could drop 20 H-bombs on Pakistan and Aphganistans and you would guarantee yourself a special place in hell for your heinous crimes against humanity - it would do nothing but make Al Queda in 20 other nations around the world more popular and increase the number of terrorist attacks. Thats whats fundementally with the whole idea of a "war on terror" - you might as well declare a "war on intollerance" or "war on greed". The more we act like an imperialist power or in their world view "Crusaders against Islam" the more popular they become with 1/4 of the globe that follows the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed in one form or the other.

Joel - you are advocating the greatest suicide bomber recruitment drive in the history of mankind.

The leaders of the 9/11 hijackers were fairly integrated into (but profoundly alienated from) Western European culture. Fail to grasp that and you will allow George Bush and co. to continually engage in one misadventure after another that only strengthens instead isolates Al Queda and their myriad of imitators.

As far as the war in Iraq is extremely profitable for Bush's closest friends, thats why we are there, no other reason.

Suicide bombers, WTC pilots, train blower-uppers, all need to be pursued
and extinguished. That is justice.

We need to get sensible with SUVs, forgetting tax subsidies for huge
multi-ton gas-guzzlers. People see how we behave and what is on our
streets. We need to conserve energy and develop new soulrces of energy.

We need to "live and let live." Democracy is not right for everybody. There
are many world systems that exist without the "democracy" ploy. Many
are very happy.

Joel

__________________

For the most part, I agree with you - I just think the truth of the matter is that most of all three of the types of terrorists you are talking about are all over the world, exactly everywhere but Afghanistan. Scorching and burning Afgani villages just makes for good ratings for Al Jazeera and popularizing the jihaidists. If the miliatary hierarchy that supports Musharrif in Pakistan felt like giving us Bin Laden, we would have gotten him a long time ago. If sginificant members of Saudi royal family and tiehr circle cut off their financial support, do you think bin Laden would be able to get his dialiysis up in the mountainous border regions of Afganistan and Pakistan.

Bush talks a good game but he is not really that interested in catching bin Laden himself. He's too distracted by using the "political capital" the "war on terror" provides him to pursue his other agendas. In many ways 9/11 is the greatest thing that ever happened to Bush politically. Why would he want to give that up?

In terms of pursuing a sensible energy policy, expecting the Bush adminstration to do this is the equivalent of asking Corey Kemp to head the city's Ethics Commission. His interests and agenda are clear and those simply aren't it.

Afghan news looks good to me.

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/worl...ban050706.html

Exactly. There's the problem. If I can make an analogy, George
Bush is borrowing pages out of John Street's playbook.

Its all about raising millions upon millions upon millions for the next
election for THE PARTY. Term limits have nothing to do with this.
It goes on and on.


Joel

__________________