Still occupied by Miguel's wish list for the US presidency.
In his blog the long term strategy for the war on terror is discussed.
I was never convinced that the US had the right strategy in this struggle. But believe me, I don't flatter myself in trying to give an easy solution.
Concerning the war on terror strategy persued by the US some points remain unclear for me. I can't quite get them. I'd like to share them with you here.
Well, what is the long term plan for the war on terror? Can you basically sum it up to bringing democracy by the sword and scare the hell out of any potential opponent with the threat of invasion? Will potential terrorists be hunted down and killed all over the world?
Will other countries have to be invaded? If so, which will be likely? Iran? Syria? What about Saudi Arabia? North Korea? Will the people in these countries hail the incoming troops as liberators or side with their fellow countrymen?
Is the war on terror a Last-Man-Standing battle of good vs. evil? Is it likely to win it? Is there a possibility to lose it?
When will the Bush administration begin to feel safe and ready to stop fighting? After all terrorists are gone? Will they ever?
Will a decade (Miguel mentions that time frame) of terrorist attacks and retaliation/preemptive strikes lead to peace, liberty, tolerance and democracy?
Why does this sound like Utopia?
Edit: I watched parts of an interview with G. W. Bush today. It was from his campaign bus.
He said that the war on terror could not be won but that we could make it harder for the terrorists. I agree here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I also agree w/ W's assement on that interview. It's possible to loose this war (and I certainly don't think terrorism will ever be entirely eliminated). And I was pleased to see Bush realize that invading Iran (or some other country, perhaps?) would probably be a bad idea. He properly emphasized that Iraq was a different case, because diplomacy had failed for 12 years. But diplomacy can still be used in Iran or other cases. Good.
As for the idea of this as a last man standing type of conflict. I truly believe it is. I believe the war on terror — specifically the war against Islamic fundamentalism (a minority w/in the religion, to be sure) — is nothing more than the battle for the survival of Western Civilization. I see this conflict in much the same way as Camus viewed the Second World War as a fight aginst Nazi barbarism. I believe that if we decide to treat this conflict as nothing less than a fight to ensure the survival of liberalism, we will lose.
If this is a last man standing situation of the West against islamic fundamentalism, if this is a kill-or-be-killed scenario .... then this war may go on forever.
For fundamentalists any dead comrade is a martyr, encouraging the others to fight more vigorously in order to take revenge or die trying.
This is what makes me wonder if this conflict can be settled by force AT ALL.
Whatever, Pandora's box is open so it 's no use to stop here and hope for the best. So the war has to go on.
My problem is that I can't see an exit strategy. Once this war is started it will have to go on, I guess but I cannot see any chance to whitness the end of this conflict. I think this war on terror might exede my lifetime.
Would you object me saying that this may not be settled in a decade or so but that the war on terror might go on for 20, 30 or 50 years?
Well, the wars against crime, poverty, hunger, disease have been going on longer than that.
Post a Comment