Based on your usage of "divide and conquer" in your reply it occurs to me that you may have no idea what I mean by "divide and conquer" as difficult as that is for me to believe. Forgive me for assuming that everyone understands what I'm referring to when I say "divide and conquer." Although I am a rocket scientist, it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the heritage of this term or it's application in the current situation with regard to the War on Islam/WOT.
The heritage of the "divide and conquer" phrase is somewhat in dispute, but it is most often attributed to Julius Caesar who used the strategy in his conquest of Gaul (now France) in the first century BC. The Celtic tribes of Gaul were loosely configured and Caesar enlisted one tribe against another and dug in his own Roman army while they savaged one another. Eventually, his Roman army fought the surviving tribes and gained the upper hand as Gaul became part of the Roman Empire.
In the present situation, the president has appealed to moderate Muslim nations such as Pakistan in a war against those nations controlled by radical Muslims such as Afghanistan and Iraq with some success. Is a nation such as Pakistan a perfect ally? Certainly not. There are many radicals within Pakistan, any of whom would gladly slit either of our throats without a second thought. However, it's leader, Mushareff has been paid well and has marshalled his resources to assist the US-lead coalition against Al Qaeda and other terrorists in the region.
Even though Julius Caesar was able to enlist some Celtic tribes, he eventually ended up fighting those same tribes or others who had in turn defeated those tribes he had used previously. The point is that he was adeptly able to get his bidding done by others before expending his own energies and his own army.
For purposes of my explanation, a moderate Muslim is any Muslim who will 1) take up arms, 2) command other Muslims to take up arms or 3) provide material support to serve our purposes.
The president understands this. He is trying to preserve American lives, much as Julius Caesar was preserving the lives of his soldiers prior to committing them to battle.
The UAE has provided material support for our military endeavors in the region and has thus acted as a moderate Muslim nation in my definition. Even Caesar paid those who fought for him whether they were part of his army or were merely mercenaries. The Bush administration was attempting to reward a moderate Muslim nation in the region for its efforts in decades long War on Islam.
In my estimation and that of many others much more knowledgeable than me, the security risk of having DWP operate a few piers in this country was manageable. The US Coast Guard and Customs Service are in control of security. This was purely a business deal. Why would anyone with terrorist motives spend $7B to carry out an attack when the combined efforts of the 9/11 terrorists were probably accomplished with much less than $1M?
I understand your concern about the growing threat, but I certainly don't believe we have exhausted efforts to westernize the vast majority of Muslims that just want to live their lives regardless of what their religion preaches or who governs them. Well over 99% are not jihadists now and never will be. Now that we have a foothold in the mideast in Iraq, their society has been opened to western influence and I'm prayerful that such a presence can ultimately be exploited for His glory.
BTW, thank you for your service to our nation and Semper Fi (my younger brothers are both Marines).
"No, the West must fight Islam NOW, lest more of Islam's countries join the nuclear club. Everyday we wait, Islam grows and the West shrinks."
This is the smartest thing I have heard in FR yet this year.... congrats!