We are not "empire building" in the Middle East. We have vital, national interests in that part of the world because we get most of our oil from there. We also have an interest in supporting democracy wherever it tries to establish itself.
Islamic terrorists are at war with us and everything we believe in. It's a matter of national interest and self-preservation. We have no intent or desire to establish an American "empire," as Pat constantly proclaims.
In short, he's wrong from the beginning. Sounds like a good title for his next book.
America is seen as the main obstacle, this is due to the fact that America is as you pointed out reliant on Middle Eastern oil therefore America is a major stumbling bloc to a united Islamic Nation.
Therefore America is seen as a major target, with attacks such as these what they hope to achieve is one of two objectives.
Objective 1 America realises that her support of the pro Western States will be too costly therefore she will withdraw all military assets from the Middle East allowing the Islamic fundamentalists to carry out 1978/79 style Iranian revelations.
Or Objective 2, due to the scale of the atrocity the American government is forced by public opinion to carry out large scale reprisals against a number of Muslim countries, these operations will be used as the basis for more anti American propaganda with the Muslim countries and so hopefully inflame the Muslim population enough to carry out 1978/79 style Iranian revelations.
The outcome is to either push the west out of the Middle East or encourage the West to leave, they then hope to create a Super Islamic state.
I agree with Pat Buchanan analyst that with American withdrawal America will no longer be a target. This is because there are too many other major obstacles to achieving such an Arabic super state.
Saddam himself is a major obstacle unless he accepted as the leader of such a state he will not serve under another leader.
Other obstacles is the mutual suspicion each Arabic country has for each other, Israel has exploited this in her various fight for survival on more than one occasion.
The various differing forms of Islam and political leaderships in each of the states are another major obstacle.
Without American support and aid the Middle East will fragment into a number of regional wars that will make the Balkans look like a walk in the park.
Many see this as a good aim as the Arabs will be too busy slaughtering each other to worry about the West.
This is one idea being mooted about as a last resort.
Tony
I may be flamed for saying this but Pat is right, this is a internal struggle for us, not an external one. We must of course not let these evil deeds go unpunished, but to declare war against a foe that has no nation, no shore to land on, no one that can surrender, is not winnable by definition. We can only kill those we find, or indiscriminantly kill thousands or millions. That will only breed more hatred for us, and when we bore ourselves with this, and terrorist acts become rare, how do we sustain the will to fight?
Before we undertake this war we must first secure our homeland, our base. We can only do this by making sure there are few terrorist or traitors among us.
First we must secure our borders (Pats way with a fence), make sure the ships and planes coming in are free of danger and enemies, then evict all who are not citizens, ALL of them.
How can we fight a war without first evicting all possible terrorists, and jailing any traitors? We can't. The sight of our troops overseas, fighting battles, while the terrorists poison water, release biologicals, and blow up power lines at home, will be unique in American history. So it is at home the first battles must be fought.
One thing that bugs me about people with your opinions, how is Buchanan at once and war monger, and an isolationist. It seems he has been called both during his public career.
I write to you because your opinions are usually reasoned, so explain a policy that will 1) punish our enemies 2) reduce or get rid of the danger 3) not reduce our rights at home 4) not bring into effect a southern fence, or tighter restrictions on immigration [Pats main push I believe.]
First, we can get a hell of a lot more oil domestically. Second define our "interest in supporting democracy".....it's none of our damn business. You laud the term "democracy". Our founding fathers hated the term. Why would you not prefer to fight tyranny inside our borders, as opposed to spending American blood and treasure in global 911 calls?
If, for example, the Somalian's want a "democracy", let them fight for it on their own.....our ancestors did.
Regards
J.R.
Agreed. So why do we pursue an Israel "Uber alles" policy there?