Replies

I generally disagree with the premise in this article. And there have been many similar articles of late.

The world will NOT let us make unlimited military incursions into country after country. We can't go from 1 to 2 to 3 and so on. We have to pick our wars very carefully.

I, for one, feel North Korea has pretty much a free shot to pursue whatever program they want - at least for a few years until the Iraqi chatter dies down. There is no way the U.S. could engage in a second war anytime soon - short of retaliating for a first strike upon the U.S. The Congress won't permit it - and the rest of the world won't permit it. The political costs will simply be too high to pay.

With perhaps the exception of Syria. Syria seems to be emerging more and more as an extension of the war in/with Iraq. They're sending fighters, aiding and abetting the enemy, harboring terrorists and excaped war criminals (those by the way can come bavck and bite us and our efforts). Syria, to me is the exception to your view, otherwise, I pretty much agree with you.

I am of the opinion and belief that Syria will have to be dealt with and while we are already there in position to do so. Besides, Syria wouldnn't be much of a "war" really. Probably just a mop-up action finish the work we started in Iraq.

I agree generally that we couldnt or shouldnt go after other countries right now unless there is a very good reason tied directly to the war on terror, but one point: Sooner or later the "heavy political price" in world terms runs out of steam. We see that China, Russia and even Euro-weenies are undermining our initiatives anyway. What more can they do that they arent already doing? Kick us out of the UN? wow, we'd love to get thrown in that briar patch wouldnt we?

I, for one, feel North Korea has pretty much a free shot to pursue whatever program they want...

Nope. They changed their tune (and so did China) after our victory in Iraq. Of course, North Korea started talking to us much more politely right after China shut off their main oil pipeline for a couple of days recently.

Amazing how a little ass-kicking can bring these other troublemakers into line, isn't it?

Another bonus is that Iranian leaders are now talking about holding a referendum to normalize relations with America and Egypt. And their pro-democracy dissidents are telling us don't-you-dare-fall-for-it. They'd love to be invaded and have the mullahs thrown out. Iran is really ripe for democracy. and we nned to be ready to move and continue using the Blair government as our front man.

If you're strong and ready for action, you don't have to fight as often, FRiend. But some fights you can't duck. There's always some punk like Saddam or Osama waiting to test you.

I have to agree with you on that one. Sometimes I post on the Fark.com fora, and do battle with the libs over there. Whenever some drooling Marxist posts that GW is another Hitler, hell-bent on conquest and subjugation, I counter with a little Realpolitik.

The US military is not, I repeat, NOT going to begin any new offensives any time soon. North Korea is going to be taken care of dipomatically because the Chinese need our markets. Iran is moving toward a new revolution, or at least reform and reproachment with the West. Bashar Assad is an amateur, a spoiled prince-turned-opthamologist who succeeded his father, would fall faster than Hussein did, and he knows it. Sandwiched between Israel to the west and eight American divisions to the east and given the choice between cooperation with the US and the total destruction of his regime, Assad the Second will choose cooperation.

That leaves the real viper's nest - the Arabian peninsula. Dealing with them might involve revealing hard evidence of the al-Saud family's active and primary involvement in fomenting Islamist terror in the Muslim world, and a diplomatic standoff ending in their sacrificing some of their own in order to save their own a$$es.

We're going to win this war, but it will have to involve thinking in terms that last longer than the average news cycle. Think of it as a 21st Century version of the Cold War in terms of strategy and scope, with the difference being that this enemy, instead of a monolithic totalitarian state with thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at our homes, is a collection of poorly armed, backward theocracies and kleptocracies who hate each other only marginally less than they hate each other.