It's all about confusing two separate issues
by
MisterPerson
10/21/2009, 8:37 AM #
I heard Madeline Albright on the TV talking about Afghanistan saying "we were attacked by Al Qaeda, they had bases in Afghan hosted by the Taliban", etc.
I really see absolutely no point at all in US soldiers patrolling Afghanistan to be ambushed and killed by guerrillas. This insanity could go on forever.
Even if Bin Laden had a base in Afghan at one point - so what? He has also been based in Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other places too.
The 9/11 attackers were SAUDIS not Afghans- but it was not convenient to attack our "friends" the Saudis- so we had to make do with Afghanistan.
There are all sorts of places we could combat Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda linked groups - Somalia, Philippines and Indonesia come to mind- we just seem to fight where it is "convenient" to do so.
And "nation-building" always seems to come into the picture. The local corrupt "government" needs money to fight the terrorists but will really just steal it from the clueless US taxpayer while doing a sham anti-terrorist war.
Preventing more 9/11s in the USA is a much simpler issue than trying to wipe out Islamic fundamentalism all over the planet. We are already doing it - it could be vastly improved by keeping out foreigners from places like Afghanistan Pakistan and Iraq, etc. Put it to a plebiscite - it will get a majority.
The other issue, which should not be confused with the ridiculous goal of killing or capturing every last jihadi on the planet, is preventing them from getting WMDs.
This is where we should be concentrating our resources- NOT on having Marines patrolling the Hindu Kush, getting blown up by roadside IEDs.