So what is the better way to fight terrorism?
Unfortunately there are millions more willing to take their place. Our leaders must come to the realization that Islamic culture is simply not compatible with the institutions, values and practices of the West that emanated from the enlightenment. When confronted with this modernity, Muslim countries descend into chaos and violence. The US when it involves itself in their affairs then becomes the focus of their bitter resentments. Our leaders have to realize they are not “just like us”. There can be no “multiculturalism” domestically.It should not be confused with tolerance. Hostile elements must be excluded and removed from America. American must deal with increasingly chaotic Muslim countries in a realistic manner that actually serves the security concerns of the American people. It also means that the capabilities of the CIA and other services must be restored.
First step is identifying the actual enemy: islam.
Previously, terrorism was considered a crime and dealt with as a matter of criminal justice, but that changed under Bush.
Because the Taliban would not turn over bin Laden, we said any nation that harbors terrorists would be considered terrorists, which allowed the invasion of Afghanistan. But, because of a FOIA document released in 2010, we learned that negotiations between the Paki ISI and the Taliban over the turn over of bin Laden were ongoing. Bush said no more talk, we are going in.
So the question is law enforcement versus military intervention, or how much of each.
So looking at Gitmo detainees, how many were a result of law enforcement and how many were a result of military activity. And not just the numbers of each, but how valuable were each as a source of intelligence. Then you need to recognize that another nation(like Pakistan) may not be willing to use their law enforcement or military to apprehend. Or, did Paki know all along that bin Laden was living there.
Often it just boils down to foreign policy doctrine. How much do we depend on diplomacy, military intervention, and/or financial strength. Perry is talking the NeoCon line and Paul is trying to avoid sounding like an isolationist. Rand Paul is masquerading as a Realist, but his votes in the Senate Foreign Relation Committee are giving him away. Plus, Paul keeps criticizing NeoCons, especially Cheney.
Meanwhile, Hillary(Liberal Interventionist) is watching this and has hired NeoCon Fred Kagan as an advisor. If Paul's polling numbers stay high or he gets the GOP nomination, she will run a hawkish, interventionist campaign.
McCain ran as a NeoCon and Obama ran as a Realist, and many GOP Realists backed Obama. Romney tried project that NeoCons and Realists would have equal standing in his administration, but it became obvious that the NeoCons would control, so many GOP Realists backed Obama in 2012. Of all the GOP candidates in 2012, Huntsman was the only Realist.