Mule:

I hear you. But - and I'm not trying to be funny here - did we "lose" the Vietnam "War"? We lost many "battles" and left, and a number of talking heads say Osama took away lessons from this. But did we really lose the "war"? Did we really fail in our attempt to thwart communism? I don't think so - we failed to reach our military objectives, but Vietnam came over to our side of the world within 20 years. How is that loss?

We met our initial military objectives in Iraq, and might very well make our political ones too (or maybe not). But is anything more certain than that Iraq and much of the Middle East will be on our side in 20-40 years? Look at the demographics, the satallite tv showing what the rest of the world enjoys, how the rest of the world lives. How long can people growing up in that area remain backwards with the future staring them in the face? Not that there won't be controversy 40 years from now. But we have that with the UK.

And "all this terrorism"? What terrorism? 9/11, I grant you. Trying to exploit the situation in Iraq (and now largely failing to do so) I grant you. But Spain? London? That was homegrown, and not out of character with old groups like the IRA and Basque Separatists. I don't see the huge threat. I see a bunch of unhappy teenagers and 20 somethings who don't fit in and join the "cult of the day." This happens in all Societies and always will. Our technology makes it necessary that we stop it, spy on it, police it, or it can do great damage. But it can hardly hope to topple the West no matter what it claims.

The bad guys are bad. I just don't think they can stop us all. It's like 6 billion to 60,000. I like our odds....

Points well taken!

Point me to them!

I'll kill them non stop, no compunctions! Seriously!

Problem is, they are cowardly, despicable terrorists who are very good at hiding between strikes.

Unless you propose wiping out all the Muslims to eliminate "them" terrorists?

Just asking.

RKC, I agree with you somewhat, but just because we have the odds does not mean we should let things run their course. Religious zealots are not to be underestimated, and this recent batch surpasses most in their dedication to the "cause". Further, you have a very large world population of muslims that are caught in the middle, the last thing we need is for them to side with the zealots. Can you imagine the impact if even a fraction of the UK's large muslim population could be swayed to jihad?

I also believe that we will eventually win the fight, I am just hopeful that we don't lose many more innocent people in the process.

The last thing I'm saying is to stop trying. But even if I said it, it wouldn't happen, because our success is a natural outgrowth of what people are most likely to be doing anyway - sort of Adam Smith meets the iPod.

Nothing is going to stop a people trying to escape poverty or oppression. It can be done for a little while, sure. But not long-term. The very best/heavy-hitters of the bunch couldn't do it: Hitler couldn't do it; Stalin couldn't do it, Mao couldn'd do it. How is little Osama off in the wilderness going to do it? It just isn't going to happen. His vision in not appealing to the mass of mankind. Not now that they've seen the promised land on TV.

Whether it is porn or women's rights, the West is appealing. Sure, the Saudi monarchy pays radicals to divert attention away from the ugly aspects of monarchy (which is just one reason why monarchy is lousy) and Osama exploits this. But the Saudi monarchy (like all monarchies which hold any power) cannot last in a modern age. Whether it will fall, or phase itself out, or become a symbolic monarchy only like England, I don't know. But it will not last. And neither will the splinter causes it created to keep itself going.

I truly feel that we can't stop getting better (on average) as the decades progress.

Excellent posts RKC!

Interesting stuff. RKC, we did lose the Vietnam War. We beat communism economically, not militarily. I don't understand why we have not been hit on our soil since 2001, it would be pretty damn easy. For every Hamid Hayat caught(loser from Stockton who is doing 24 years in the Federal Pen for going to terrorist training, coming back to California to do some Jihad work, from what I can gather they were planning to bomb a hospital in Sacramento), there are almost certainly 2 or 3 we do not catch.

Why haven't they struck again? It is not due to lack of capability.

I have heard the interesting theory that they are closely watching our political race, and postponing attacks until after the election. The idea is that an attack would give momentum to the pro-war-on-terror Republicans, and boost support for the war in Iraq. Two things they do not want to happen.

Either that, or they are planning another large scale attack. Don't they say that 9/11 was the result of 5 years of planning?

..

MAN this is good stuff! I need a beer and more popcorn, I agree with a lot of what's being said, but I admit I can't think of a way to combat this kind of terrorism; when people are willing to kill themselves and anyone else for some mental religious belief, how do you combat it.

Part of the problem is soldiers and the military think as military and have rules of engagement, when you enter a hostile environment and everyone is "allowed" to carry weapons, and no one dresses like "the bad guy" who do you fight?

Maybe Saddam was just the right leader for Iraq and beheading was just what some of these zealots needed to keep them inline. There's a lot of talk about Iraq and terrorism, realistically they have/had nothing to do with an of the terrorism going on (this is Bush self justifying).

Pressuring other countries like Saudi Arabia doesn't help, they're so in bed with the current government what's it going to help (they do own approx 15% of America right now), what are we going to say "bring us your son or we'll ask again?"

The only way I can see to fix terrorism is to infiltrate every whack job group out there and get them from the inside. YOMV

We are trying to fight this like a good traditional military campaign which it is not.

We need to take off the gloves, round up the usual suspects and let them apply the heat to these dirtbags. (quit being PC for one - they probably laugh at us over this) Life is too comfortable for this fuctards - make it incredibly uncomfortable and they will turn on their own and hand them to us.

A genetic virus that targets Arabs

Great military leaders - from Caesar to MacArthur - knew that winning wars (as opposed to battles) was about more than tactics - more than movement and direction and weapons. That's why this asymmetric warfare is still winnable. It doesnt' mean it won't cost lives and time and tenacity. But what worthwhile goal has ever been achieved by lining up people and mowing them all down? That is like a Tsunami or other natural disaster that wipes out your enemies as well as your allies, and in no way changes the political makeup of an area.

To truly secure your future for a generation or two, you need to be more than tough. We did it with Germany and Italy and Japan. We beat them in a hard fight, and then, instead of exacting revenge, like after WWI, we lifted them up and encouraged them to be equals (and to make sports cars :)). They have been perfect allies for over two generations. (And by perfect I allow them the right to be human and disagree from time to time). Don't like that analogy? Well, Rome gave her conqured people citizenship if they agreed to stop their opposition. Isn't that close to what has happened at least partly in SE Asia and India and Russia and China? Isn't their adoption of our ways of life a sort of citizenship? I don't say it is impossible for a Cold War to begin again, only that day by day (Putin notwithstanding) it becomes less likely.

Many complain about the peace-niks. Many say they cannot be swayed. But recent history shows this to be false. In late 2001 and 2002, there were very, very few who worried about the use of our military. Today there are many who feel we have misused it. These are not new babies just recently born, but people who have changed their minds. Isn't there therefore a a chance that if we show them how a better, more secure peace might be possible, they might change their minds back? The truth about what is happening in parts of Iraq - where rounding up people is being lessened and "walking the beat" to protect the innocent - giving the Iraqi people a better and more secure life - wouldn't these things interest many of those who shout for peace? And isn't recruiting people to your side the way to make lasting change possible?

Do you know how Caesar is pronounced in Latin? It is with a hard "K" - like Kai-tzar. That's where 2,000 years later the words Kaiser and Tzar and King and maybe even Pasha have come down to us from. Caesar didn't write off the people who weren't quite convinced, unlike Pompeii who pushed away all but the most ardent supporters.....and that's why his name is still the name we give to great power some 21 Centuries later. And why, except for a well-timed volcano, Pompeii's name would be completely forgotten.

We need a leader who can be cruel and ruthless and tough, but who can see that a lasting victory can only be won by pleasing the most people....and pleasing them in a deep and true way - not by "sexual relations" or "tax cuts" - but something deeper and finer and better - a philosophical satisfaction of having done something worth doing, of having advanced the level of the species, of having made something lasting.

We all know we need such a person. And I wish I saw one running for President. But I don't......

Right, like Saddam. but look what happened to him
SmileWavy

Iraq should have been partitioned in three. That should have been the plan and the aim. They are not ready to be together in the way we are - and whether we are is sometimes still in doubt :D

If that meant that it was three countries, fine. If that meant the borders of Saudi Arabia and Iran grew to their proper religious frontiers, fine. I don't see how that could have made things worse. You might have gotten peace. You might have gotten Civil War. But there was the chance for peace. If and when we leave, this will not go well. The Soviets were in Yugoslavia for generations. Hatred of them kept the sects focused elsewhere. When they left.....

You can't stop these kinds of hatreds any more than you can make a child grow up in 1/2 the time. Some things take a fixed amount of time to play themselves out.

YOUR?

My what?