|
TaoPoohBear -> RE: Obama to invade Pakistan (7/19/2008 11:38:15 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3 How would I deal with it? 1. Recognize that the elimination of AQ will not mean the end of Islamic extremism, or jhadist beliefs. From what this average person is able to understand and know, AQ is the name of the terrorist network put together by Bin Laden and other like minded people of intelligence, wealth and power. The elimination of Bin Laden and AQ, as you indicate, would only be a temporary set back. Sooner or latter it would be replaced and possibly be even made stronger and more determined. 2. Recognize that there are countries in the Middle East, and Near East whose governments are sincerely trying to deal with the threat of Islamic extremists in their country as they seek to modernize their countries. As a result, those governments may indeed be easily toppled by Islamic extremists in response to any unilateral military action taken by us. 3. Continue to deal with the threat of Islamic extremism and the like on a global basis by addressing those issues that seem to, and tend to feed Islamic extremism. a. Address instances of terrorism by jhadist and Islamic extremists as acts of war, not solely as criminal acts. b. Continue to work with other countries, on a number of levels of security in efforts to prevent acts of terrorism and mininmize the threat. c. Help moderate Moslems gain a greater voice in the public forum as well as their communities and schools. You can not reconcile #2 & #3a. Hostile acts from an organization must have a point of origin. It all sounds warm and fuzzy, but destroying the Al Qaeda organization utterly & completly (something we have yet to try) at it's point of origin will have a chilling effect on other groups and the countries who tolerate them. If terrorism is an act of war, then a country who is the point of origin must be given a carrot and a stick - help us kill them or we'll help ourselves. This point was NEVER driven home to the Saudis, but it was to the Iranians. Guess what? Iran helped! quote:
According to U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins, Iran played a "decisive role" in persuading the Northern Alliance delegate to compromise. Dobbins also recalls how the Iranians insisted on including language in the Bonn agreement on the war on terrorism. The bureaucracy recognized that there was an opportunity to work with Iran not only on stabilizing Afghanistan but on al-Qaeda as well. As reported by the Washington Post on Oct. 22, 2004, the State Department's policy planning staff had written a paper in late November 2001 suggesting that the United States should propose more formal arrangements for cooperation with Iran on fighting al-Qaeda. That would have involved exchanging intelligence information with Tehran as well as coordinating border sweeps to capture al-Qaeda fighters and leaders who were already beginning to move across the border into Pakistan and Iran. The CIA agreed with the proposal, according to the Post's sources, as did the head of the White House Office for Combating Terrorism, retired Gen. Wayne A. Downing. BUT quote:
Investigative journalist Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack recounts that Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who chaired an interagency committee on Iran policy dealing with issues surrounding Afghanistan, learned that the White House intended to include Iran as a member of the "axis of evil" in Bush's State of the Union message in January. By the end of December, Hadley had decided, against the recommendations of the State Department, CIA, and White House counter-terrorism office, that the United States would not share any information with Iran on al-Qaeda, even though it would press the Iranians for such intelligence. Soon after that decision, hardliners presented Iranian policy to Bush and the public as hostile to U.S. aims in Afghanistan and refusing to cooperate with the war on terror – the opposite of what officials directly involved had witnessed. How Neocons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al-Qaeda
|
|
|
|