Nice to know that somethings never change
I just knew that Fuch's would be the guy who would post a reply, and I just knew that he would have to take a swipe at the U.S. ;)
Up front I have to take issue with some of your assertions, in part because I don't understand some of your assertions. In your refutation of the Taliban as a destabilizing force, you cite domestic instabilities. However, my point was not that the Taliban contributes to domestic instability, but that as a government it contributed to international instability, which it undoubtedly did. When the Taliban was in power, all states in the region had a vested interest in controlling it and a legitimate fear of interference in their domestic affairs. Moreover, the fact that something doesn't hit our news is hardly an argument.
I love the ad patria attack at the US:rolleyes:, but I guess I can't be surprised, since you are European.:wry: (See what I did there,nudge, nudge, wink, wink.) Whether the US is more or less security seeking, or whether it claims to be is irrelevant to whether the Taliban can be trusted to behave as a security seeking state.
Finally, your belief and my beliefs about the US's superpower status are irrelevant to the assertion that American Policy makers believe that the US is a superpower and therefore act accordingly. Whether successfully or not, any state (US or otherwise) which views itself as Superpower is going to view involvement in Afghanistan as a war of necessity, because it is for any state that is a superpower. The rest of the arguments about what form that involvement should take are spurious and irrelevant to the question of necessity.
Put another way, imagine that you have a daughter, who thinks that she is a princess. A princess must have a crown, and arguing with her that she is not a princess and therefore does not need a crown is futile because she is a princess, dammit; now get her her crown! There are things that whether we agree with them or not, or even if they are true is not the important issue. In this case, America and American's generally believe that the US is a super power, indeed so do the Jihadi's which is why we are the "Great Satan" and not, China or India. You may be right, and I know plenty of people who would agree, but that doesn't matter for this discussion.
I would point out that you are completely willing to address the Pashtun's in terms of their cultural perspective, and demand that the US do so, but are totally unwilling to look at things from an American Policy makers perspective. In English we have a saying that goes "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." I know there is one in German that means the same thing, but I can't remember it. It means, in this case, that what is good for one country is good for them all. (If you know the German saying, please tell me.)
Good post, Fuchs. Some thoughts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
First of all I would have made clear that terrorism is mostly a problem of internal security. Police, federal police and intelligence agencies are the main defence against terrorists.
Agree but recall that the US has a significant problem in this due to its geography, size, population and the diversity of that population. While even for the US, your statement is correct it unlikely that the measures you state will be adequate and therefor other measure will almost certainly be required.
Quote:
...Diplomacy can also be employed as a countermeasure to terrorist propaganda in order to reduce their recruitment success.
True but for several reasons mostly attributable to a non-thinking Congress our Diplomacy efforts have been less than they should have been. :mad:
Quote:
Finally it was appropriate to use overt violent action against terrorists who don't hide ("terror camps"). This level of activity needs to be low, though. An over-use would just drive all into hiding and probably achieve even less than little action.
Totally agree. The problem is that we neglected the development of doctrine, training and equipment required to do this in spite of indications the requirement existed. Much but not all that neglect was due poor focus and a failure to realign after 1989. Money saved was slight so there's no real excuse for that -- but it is the reason the option taken was so taken; there were few real alternatives available to the US Government even though there should have been. :(
Quote:
Finally, it would have been wise to communicate that 9/11 was a disgraceful crime by words, action - and in cooperation with others (especially non-secular authorities).
True -- we have a bad tendency to overreact to stimulation...:rolleyes:
Quote:
On the other hand...The same goes for the excessive and perverted economic sanctions on Iraq.
If you meant Iran and /or Iraq, I agree with that whole paragraph. Shame no one asked us... :wry: