You really can't state a rational political goal of AQ or the Taliban.
No, YOU can't -- that doesn't mean it can't be done.
The Taliban have control of Afghanistan -- their goal is to keep it.
AQ is against Western influence (particularly the United States) in the Middle East as a result of the oil trade -- and they want those influences gone from "their" homeland by any means necessary. (The Taliban is also on board with this, although on a more localized level -- they certainly don't want American influences in their territory).
See how easy that was?
They want to survive, and will call it successful when doing so on a level you and I will consider insufferable. Your stated strategy, as near as I can tell what you're suggesting because you haven't stated it, doesn't seem like anything that will be of any consequence to our current enemies. If they merely live to die another day, they call that good.
Wrong. Just... wrong. They have long-term goals; your lack of knowledge of them is staggering.
I told you to read Sun Tzu -- "Know your enemy and know yourself" was one of his most important maxims.
No clue. I thought I knew, but when that objective was reached we didn't exit, so clearly I was wrong. The person I have discussed this with whom I respect the most pointed out that we entered with no exit strategy because the intent was to never leave. As much as I detest that idea, I find no argument against it.
A permanent occupation? I've heard that idea tossed around by various chickenhawks, and by now you can see how that would escalate the War on Terror, which they were supposedly trying to end.
I've heard a lot of theories, none of which hold water under scrutiny... of course, in the months after 9/11, "scrutiny" wasn't the order of the day. We'd been hurt, and
someone was going to suffer for it.
Not saying I believe this one, but it should be noted that Halliburton made billions in sweet no-bid contracts during the war and the aftermath... and a certain vice-president used to work for them.
War for profit is as old as war itself. Again, not saying I fully believe it was the reason, but you better believe someone was laughing all the way to the bank...
Yes. This was never in contention. War protests at home had something to do with this. That will not work against the likes of the Talibs, who have no qualms with killing such protesters. This is why I have been opposing your statements; they just don't apply. I have no doubt they were a wondrous revelation at one time, but ...
But... you think that protesters are the ONLY tool to convince an organization that its goals are unattainable. That's adorable; it really is.
Not at all. I'm saying we can't learn anything about how to win because we didn't.
The above is one of the most absurdly wrong statements I've read around here in a long time, and you have no idea how much that says. You honestly believe that it is impossible to learn how to win by studying why you didn't win?
Really? Haven't you ever learned from a mistake? Ever?
Obviously if your opponent loses the will to fight, you win by default. I do not consider that to be learning anything.
In war, there's no such thing as winning "by default" -- a win is a win. And if you can win without fighting, so much the better -- more Sun Tzu for you.
The relevant question here becomes, what will make our current enemies lose their will to fight? The hardest person to fight is someone who is not afraid to die, or perhaps even relishes it. You're simply not going to get them to stop fighting. This region has been embroiled in conflict for 1,000's of years.
And why? Foreign Policy 101: Every war is a turf war; every war is fought over land:
There's something on their land that you want; there's something on "your" land you want to get rid of; there's a dispute over who owns a given piece of land; etc...
These days, the conflict in the Middle East can be summed up in two words: 1: Oil 2: Israel.
These two things are the reason for Western/US influence (they would argue "intrusion") and thus, the sources of the problem.
If you want my opinion as to the solutions?
1: Find other sources of oil and research alternative energies. If we don't need Saudi oil, then we don't need such an active presence in their affairs in order to protect our interests -- for the simple reason that we're no longer interested.
It's a long term plan; will take decades for it to pay off, but in the end, if we have no reason to be there, they'll have no reason to hate us for being there. Simple, really.
2: Honestly, what has Israel done for us? What strategic or economic value is it to the US? Their existence infuriates the rest of the Middle East because they consider the land (told you every war was a turf war) to have been stolen from them. Furthermore, they know that if they attack Israel, the US will come running to defend them -- our alliance makes us a target and draws us into their mess.
Give me a reason not to tell Israel, "Look, we got nothing against you guys, but you're on your own."
That's my two cents, anyway. that's how we achieve the political goal of this war -- without the war.
We CAN kill them all, or:
we could've gone in with massive humanitarian aid accompanied by so much media coverage that any attempt at bloodshed would've met with disapproval by the Muslim world.
That could've backfired -- they suspect (and to a degree, they're right) that our aid would come with strings attached. American aid comes with American influence, which is exactly what they don't want.
We don't do these things altruistically, and I wouldn't expect anyone to think we do.
Meet the Press, March 16, 2003.
Tim Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
Vice President Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.
Care to guess why Cheney was so dead wrong?
It would've been both more effective, and cheaper. It wouldn't make the Taliban lose their will to fight, it would just make them irrelevant. They weren't providing sanitation or clean drinking water. If we had, that would've done far more to win hearts and minds.
It would've been more successful than what we did; this much is true -- but you can't expect them to trust us, given our history of meddling in their internal affairs for decades -- they'd be waiting for the other shoe to drop.
We deposed the Iranian Prime Minister in 1953 and propped up the Shah... he was our puppet until we abandoned him in 1979 and let the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrow him.
We knew for decades that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people -- where do you think he got them from? Of course, he was only supposed to use them against Iran...
We armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan -- who would eventually evolve into the Taliban -- knowing that they were dangerous, because we would rather have had them in charge than the Soviets.
We have a history of meddling with the Middle East time and again in order to protect our interests in the area -- and our efforts invariably blow up in our faces due to our own short-sightedness.
I doubt anyone expects us to do it right -- so the solution is to not do it at all. The best thing we can do for the Middle East is leave it alone.
Maybe someday my Country will grow up enough to realize this. These are the Christian principles and values atheists do so like to rail against.
And that all but guarantees that your humanitarian gesture would backfire.... maybe you, as an individual Christian, can perform a humanitarian effort on this scale without pointing out that it was a Christian who did it, but you know perfectly well that not all of your Christian bretheren are so altruistic.
"Here's your humanitarian aid -- every pallet of food comes with a complementary Bible..."
They would see it as an intrusion on their way of life, and in light of history, they're very sensitive to that.
I'll never be able to forget it
