I agree. Trying to stop an enemy who primarily does guerrilla warfare (assassination, etc.) almost solely by way of defensive police methods at home won’t be effective. The enemy is using our current activities to buy his time, build his nukes, etc. We don’t need a police state at home. Soldiers fight wars. We need to go to the strongest source of enemy supply, training and morale, and defeat him. He must be beaten until he has no more will to fight. He must be denazified, until all of his local leaders, teachers and writers have no will to hate.
But oil would go up in the process. We might even have to ration oil in order to get it done. If we, as a nation, have no will to really fight, we’ll increasingly have a police state, until the enemy further consolidates, is ready to wake up his cells here and brings the fight to us.
Determined assassins eventually find their ways around security. We need to be aware of that and finish the War. We need to ditch the present “bunker,” defense-only mentality and attack the enemy. IMO, we’re not going to soften him up enough with social incursions (diplomats’ ho’house enticements in the Middle Eastern bazaar).
Actually, I think we’ve done a good job in Iraq. All the regional idiots who thought they were going to pull another Vietnam because Nancy and Harry said they could, were wrong. They were drawn in and eliminated. That didn’t put an end to terrorism, but it sure eliminated a lot of idiots willing to die on the promise of 72 wirgins.
I just wish we’d get our act together at home.
There are two major flaws in Bush’s WOT. He has left the homeland wide open. I believe he has been less than stellar at diplomacy in Europe and especially Russia.
But oil would go up in the process.
Bingo.
If we'd gone down the path you describe, the repercussions would have been staggering. Really bad stuff. Oil would have jumped up in price significantly. Hell, it might even have hit $40 or $50 a barrel!
Thank heavens we've been spared that scenario!