|
Real_Trouble -> RE: Would Terror attack change your vote? (10/22/2008 12:58:25 PM)
|
quote:
Now are you saying that if the US had evidence of terrorist leaders hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, You would be against taking them out? Are you also aware that there are reports that we have already conducted strikes across the border?
Yes, actually, I would be, just for future reference - I question the effectiveness of this tactic, given our past experiences with firing missiles into Pakistan; the longer we fixate on the wrong enemies, the longer we play directly into their hands. Why are we not addressing the major issues existing in the Afghani government we are supposedly supporting? Why are we not attempting to build a legitimate state in Afghanistan and reinforce a genuine one in Pakistan so that the people of those nations will force the terrorists out themselves?
You cannot crush a terrorist organization when the populace is sympathetic to them. Without understanding why the populace is sympathetic to them, we cannot effectively control the situation. What we really need is a continuing two-part strategy of crushing terrorist cells wherever we identify them, harassing their operations wherever possible (this does not include targeted strikes in foreign nations, necessarily, that often produce unrelated casualties), and then attempting to address the underlying issues that lead to radicalization and the ability of a population to side with terrorist organizations.
Do you think Al'Qaida or the Taliban would have a foothold in Afghanistan or Pakistan if the legitimate governments there were providing a stable, non-corrupt (at least for the most part), functional governmental system that addressed their basic needs and security concerns?
Radicalism works best in the face of tyrannical, corrupt, or incompetent governance. There was a reason the communist revolution hit Tzarist Russia and not, say, England.
|
|
|
|
