True on both counts.

I haven't read all 4 pages, so pardon me if I am repeating something alread said.

I just finished GHOST WARS. It is the 2005 Pulizer Prize for non-fiction. It is incredibly well documented.

That said, the radical Islamists want to convert the world to Islam, and purge all of the infidels. This has been brewing since the 1950's in Egypt and spread to to central Asia in the late '70's. The "holy" war to drive the Russians out of Afganistan was a joint Arab effort. Not only did they win (and we immediately deserted the area) but it empowered them to feel they can now do it everywhere.

They don't want to be left alone. They do want us to convert to the Koran as they view it or they want us dead. Plain and simple.

Hal, good info. Did the book have any thought on how to combat radical Islam?

I get the sense that hundreds of small teams (10-20) of specially trained military would be a better plan than 130K guys occupying a country. Oh, and good intelligence would be nice too. I think I am wrong, but it would seem that we should have a ready ally with mainstream Islam in infiltrating and destroying cells.

does anyone here in the Military know if anything like this is on the table?

Excellent points. The basic theme of the book is that starting with Carter, our "human" intelligence operations have been crippled. We simply don't have the number of men (and woment) in the field today we did pre-Carter. Each succeding President for his own reasons were afraid of that type of intel gathering.

The question you raise about the mainstream Islamists is what really baffels me. It would seem that they would step up and help, but the implication is that they are afraid for their own well being. These are totally ruthless fanitics who will to die for the cause.

I srtongly suggest GHOST WARS. It cuts across all political party lines and I think does a great job of building a clear picture of how we got from one radical mullah to 9-11 and beyond.

I agree with the intelligence thing, and I've said so many times. I particularly liked the way the Mossad dealt with the terrorists who killed the Israeli athletes in the '72 Munich terrorist action. The terrorists got away after the killings and the newspaper photos. It was a win for the bad guys. But then, one by one, those terrorists started dying. They were being hunted by the Mossad. The Mossad finished the job. The last few guys....must have just been wondering when and where the bullet was going to come.

There is an international understanding that countries just don't go around assasinating heads of state. That's part of the reason we could not just "off" Hussein. It's a gentleman's agreement. But I would be just fine if my country announced that this agreement does not apply to terrorist leaders. And I would build a hunting team. A big one. And go get some tags and some shells and a couple of bottles of whiskey and eventually Al Queda members and recruits would just have to understand that joining that group means you will find yourself in the crosshairs of a rifle that can generate amazing muzzle velocities.

And I'm called a liberal here.

And I'd go after their money, too. And their communication infrastructure. We have the ability to fight this enemy. But unfortunately, we're busy making ourselves into targets right now, instead of shooters.

Supe - not to pick on you in two threads - but I think we are doing this. But when it gets to shooting fish in a barrel (and they unsportingly give up) we have locked them up in Guantanimo.

Do you think we should re-release them (in a fenced in environment) get them bottles of whiskey and go gunning for them again? That could be fun.http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/ar15.gif

You'll have to work harder than this to make me feel picked-on.

And yeah, a terrorist shooting range would be fun. Of course, there is that "due process" thing which I think is important, but if we're talking about Guantanamo Bay, then the due process thing is out of the picture already.