Are We Ignoring War on Terror?
John Kerry seems to think that the War in Iraq is a distraction, and that a nation the size of the United States, with the capacities we have can not possibly hit al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and do anything in Iraq as well. This poor assessment of the United States is yet another reason - all its own - not to vote for Kerry since he is so mistaken.
The Australian (named after a nation who is going it alone with us) is reporting that Amjad Farooqi was killed in a battle with security forces in Pakistan, "His elimination is a crushing blow to the al-Qa'ida network in Pakistan because he was the man who had been providing al-Qa'ida terrorists the manpower for carrying out attacks in the country."
Farooqi was also wanted over the 2002 murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded on video after being lured to Pakistan on the false promise of an interview with senior al-Qa'ida figures."
What many people everywhere do not understand is that bringing down a group like al-Qaida is similar to bringing down the mob. This is because, like the mob, terrorism is a rather abstract entity with no set boundaries, populations, and even motivations. Terrorism has many families like the mob does, and many of these families might not always get along, but like when the FBI comes knocking door, when anti-terrorist security forces come knocking, these groups have a common enemy.
It so happens that one of the largest terrorist families with the greatest reach and very large bank accounts is al-Qaida. Another family is Hamas, another is Hezbollah, another is Abu Sayyaf, another is Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, another is Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and PFLP - General Command, another is Ansar al-Islam , and the list could go on and on.
As you see, we could name groups for a while and not get them all, and this is why saying, "We're going after al-Qaida," is such a huge mistake because if we can get rid of any of these or other groups we should do so. We can say that we are going after al-Qaida, but we should make it an exclusive activity.
What if al-Qaida closed up shop and decided to call themselves Little Brown Puppies? Could we claim victory? No, we'd have to go out and wage war against Little Brown Puppies. People often attach too much value to the name as opposed to the agenda of any organization.
Saddam was backing suicide bombers, Saddam also was known to kill his neighbors as well as so many of his own people. We know Saddam was not our friend. Do the math. Should he stay or should he go? It also gives us a base of operations in one of the most volatile parts of the world. Strategically this was the right thing to do.
This method of dealing with individuals, groups, and those nations who support them is nothing new. In the 19th century we send the US 6th Fleet to the Mediterranean to fight the Barbary Pirates. They still operate in that area to this day. Why did we go there? To protect American and indeed, to protect western shipping upon the seas. These pirates were privateers who operated on their own, but were supported by certain nations.
The Marine Corps Hymn mentions 'the shores of Tripoli', and it was from these days and battles it originated.
Nothing was easy, nothing was fast, but we eventually made it not worth the while to decide to try to raid the shipping lanes. It is this attitude we need when dealing with the war on terror. Bush was right when he said it will never be completely over because in the end, it only takes one person with a bomb to keep it alive. This requires much more than responding to terrorist acts, playing defense, and hoping we don't let anything slip by. This requires action, this requires resolve, and this requires a plan that will give us a long term security and stability that Kerry's short-term thinking can not possibly address. What we can do is destroy the infrastructure and make it not worth the time of those who have the funds to support such terrorism as we discover and when we discover it.
What we can do is exactly what we are doing, but those who lack perspective and understanding seem to think our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan / Pakistan are not related or feel that fighting in Iraq is not helpful. The Democrats have a candidate who fits this unfortunate profile and now is not the time for that.
The Australian (named after a nation who is going it alone with us) is reporting that Amjad Farooqi was killed in a battle with security forces in Pakistan, "His elimination is a crushing blow to the al-Qa'ida network in Pakistan because he was the man who had been providing al-Qa'ida terrorists the manpower for carrying out attacks in the country."
Farooqi was also wanted over the 2002 murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded on video after being lured to Pakistan on the false promise of an interview with senior al-Qa'ida figures."
What many people everywhere do not understand is that bringing down a group like al-Qaida is similar to bringing down the mob. This is because, like the mob, terrorism is a rather abstract entity with no set boundaries, populations, and even motivations. Terrorism has many families like the mob does, and many of these families might not always get along, but like when the FBI comes knocking door, when anti-terrorist security forces come knocking, these groups have a common enemy.
It so happens that one of the largest terrorist families with the greatest reach and very large bank accounts is al-Qaida. Another family is Hamas, another is Hezbollah, another is Abu Sayyaf, another is Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, another is Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and PFLP - General Command, another is Ansar al-Islam , and the list could go on and on.
As you see, we could name groups for a while and not get them all, and this is why saying, "We're going after al-Qaida," is such a huge mistake because if we can get rid of any of these or other groups we should do so. We can say that we are going after al-Qaida, but we should make it an exclusive activity.
What if al-Qaida closed up shop and decided to call themselves Little Brown Puppies? Could we claim victory? No, we'd have to go out and wage war against Little Brown Puppies. People often attach too much value to the name as opposed to the agenda of any organization.
Saddam was backing suicide bombers, Saddam also was known to kill his neighbors as well as so many of his own people. We know Saddam was not our friend. Do the math. Should he stay or should he go? It also gives us a base of operations in one of the most volatile parts of the world. Strategically this was the right thing to do.
This method of dealing with individuals, groups, and those nations who support them is nothing new. In the 19th century we send the US 6th Fleet to the Mediterranean to fight the Barbary Pirates. They still operate in that area to this day. Why did we go there? To protect American and indeed, to protect western shipping upon the seas. These pirates were privateers who operated on their own, but were supported by certain nations.
The Marine Corps Hymn mentions 'the shores of Tripoli', and it was from these days and battles it originated.
Nothing was easy, nothing was fast, but we eventually made it not worth the while to decide to try to raid the shipping lanes. It is this attitude we need when dealing with the war on terror. Bush was right when he said it will never be completely over because in the end, it only takes one person with a bomb to keep it alive. This requires much more than responding to terrorist acts, playing defense, and hoping we don't let anything slip by. This requires action, this requires resolve, and this requires a plan that will give us a long term security and stability that Kerry's short-term thinking can not possibly address. What we can do is destroy the infrastructure and make it not worth the time of those who have the funds to support such terrorism as we discover and when we discover it.
What we can do is exactly what we are doing, but those who lack perspective and understanding seem to think our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan / Pakistan are not related or feel that fighting in Iraq is not helpful. The Democrats have a candidate who fits this unfortunate profile and now is not the time for that.
posted by Edward W. Prather at 13:27
<< Home