Quote Originally Posted by JeffC View Post
Ken, I don't know where you're finding your facts, but here are a few starting points:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/st...2/excerpt.html

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/...icleid=2369635

This issue is so well-documented that I'm a bit surprised that you're willing to debate it. There is no lack of data that the U.S. war in Iraq has contributed to the radicalization of Islamic extremists; that they are spreading into Europe, Africa, the Near East, etc.



No offense intended, but I'm not exactly sure I know what you just said. It sounds like you're saying that the documented increase in al-Qaeda fighters world-wide is "irrelevant", and/or that we "cannot have true numbers". I must have missed the memo that said to ignore whether your enemy is gaining ground, both in numbers of fighters and geographical distribution. I have a hard time believing that that's considered sound doctrine in any nation's military, let alone ours.

To bring this discussion back around to Steve's book, my question still stands for Steve - has this unforseen development been addressed in your book as a factor in our evolving military strategy Post-Iraq?
Jeff,

When we talk about strategy are we talking about where to go and what to do or how to go about getting where we want to be.

It seems to me just like forest and fires, there are always lots of trees dying or dead bushes through any given area. KNowing about it and doing something are two different things. If an area is left to its own for a longer period of time without any thinning or firebreaks being built it will inevitably burn larger and more devastatingly when a fire eventually starts. if proper care is taken to be proactive in preparations against that fire then the end result would be less drastic. So strategically I think about the issues with terrorist throughout the world and how on their own within their own little areas they may not seem so bad but sooner or later the fire starts and depending on past actions and preparations of those countries around them it will help to determine how bad the fire gets.

If you look at it this way how much has really been done in the last 20 years to burn the fire breaks or thin out the forests so as to minimalize what would eventually happen without any doubt.

Two tanks can't go in opposite directions on a oneway bridge at the same time so which tank do you think should let the other guy come to his side first.

It just seems to me that sometimes the absolutes which which exist despite what we would like to believe are really left out of the picture and thus strategy does suffer.
So which tank wants t back up and let the other guy come