Al Qaeda Strikes Back

The Viet Nam mistake and history repeats its self.

Politicians should be patting each other on the back. They actually accomplished something. They have repeated history. Only the players have changed.

zarkman, I know you have a lot of skin in this game, literally. That alone deserves the utmost respect and deference.

But, history ALWAYS repeats itself. The people who were opposed to entering Iraq were lamenting that "History is repeating itself! Did we forget about Viet Nam?" In one sense they were right in observing that, because there can be no other outcome than the one we are now facing. Not because we are wrong to fight our enemy -- but we are fighting a guerilla war with a modern army.

Remember the Revolutionary War? One of the main reasons we won was because the Brits were wearing red uniforms. Another reason we won was because we were using terrorist tactics and melting into the population -- while they were standing in a straight line, firing their weapons in synchronized formation. (Only much later did trench warfare develop.)

These patterns always have predictable outcomes.

I think there is a point that everyone is missing, however. We actually did win in Iraq. We just never accepted that. Mission creep took over.

one focused on both attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions that allow them to thrive

If al Qaeda can (in the author's view) "thrive" among Muslims even while -- indeed (in the author's apparent view) even because -- it is murdering hundreds of Muslims every week bombing mosques, marketplaces and schools, then what the hell kind of "local conditions" does he think would be less favorable???

"one focused on both attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions that allow them to thrive"

If al Qaeda can (in the author's view) "thrive" among Muslims even while -- indeed (in the author's apparent view) even because -- it is murdering hundreds of Muslims every week bombing mosques, marketplaces and schools, then what the hell kind of "local conditions" does he think would be less favorable???

Stultis, I don't know. That threw me too.

Then, this morning I did some research and discovered something, which I am going to post about later:

As you probably know, Al Qaeda is funded by the Afganistan opium output, which they control. Last year a record 6,100 tons were produced. About 1,500 tons has been held back from world distribution and is being used as a form of money to buy arms (remember Iran Contra?).

Don't get me started on the fact that we blew every single tomahawk in our arsenal bombing dirt in Afganistan and didn't harm one poppy plant.

I'm thinking this might be a good "local condition" to focus on.

I was arriving at that conclusion last night -- and have been thinking about how we could use that angle to our advantage.

My husband has pointed out that the Muslim women are treated like slaves and need to be freed.

Under the Taliban, women could not go to school and their lives were constantly threatened by men.

Maybe the idea of holding a Civil "war" to free the women isn't so ridiculous.

It would be best to hide the objective of the war from the Islamofascist men, of course.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.