Quote:
Originally Posted by GAsux
I think Afghanistan was the right place, we just missed our chance. By not taking a proactive role in nation building after the Soviet pull out, for a decade actually, we sort of fostered an environment for the Taliban to happen in.
|
I agree, and I think we're repeating perhaps the same mistakes in Afghanistan. Karzai, while there are things I admire about him, is in a sticky spot me thinks. The heroine biz is booming there, and we failed initially to give Afghanistan the proper post-invasion that it needed to fight off the regional warlords and get rid of the nasty crops.
Now the Afghan people are claiming that "somebody" is crop dusting their poppy (poppie?) fields, and they think it's us.
Quote:
But I see the Afghan war as more vital to the global war on terror then the Iraq war. The Afghan situation didn't seem to have the same high profile rallying potential for Arabs that Iraq did. We were able to go into Afghanistan and be only marginally affected by Arab jihadists.
Iraq on the other hand instantly became a rallying cry, a 2005 version of 1980s Afghanistan if you will. It's become the front lines for jihadists all over the world to come and make a name for themselves. I think to some degree Afghanistan actually dissipated the threat, even if only in the short term, whereas Iraq magnified it by giving it a focal point.
|
I think I agree with you partially. In retrospect, I think Afghanistan
was the right war, despite the negative consequences. I also think you're right about Iraq as a destabilizing factor, however I question the sincerity of those declaring "jihad" all of a sudden. Many of them are simply Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians coming over the border to take advantage of Iraq's weakened state. Is that our fault? It certainly is, but I think there is some validity to Bush's point that we'd rather be fighting these people en masse over there, rather than in the shadows over here.
Quote:
As for the "shift" it makes sense in theory although I don't suspect it will be any more successful. Regardless, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Iran is the place to go. The jihadists are coming from Syria, Africa, Indo, etc.
|
I think you're right, except for the fact that Iran has been linked to sketchy funding throughout the last decade or so. They had a very conscious role in what went down in Sudan with Bin Laden and company. They also have a population waiting for free markets and liberty and all that stuff. I don't recall who wrote the article, but one guy refered to them as a "red state." Their democratic process is unfortunately obstructed by courts that are ful of islamic extremists. In terms of whether or not they fit the definition of a "terrorist comforting" state is up for argument I guess, but they come pretty damn close.
It makes sense to go after the nation states supporting this stuff, cuz although you're right about where these jihadists are coming from, it may be pretty tough to go after them wherever they are.