0 Votes
The Next Front in the War on Terror
The U.S. and its Allies have been involved in military action in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Iraq, and recently in Somalia. I assume there are numerous other locations as well – Pakistan, Malaysia, Ethiopia, Sudan? We constantly hear about raised terror threat levels in the U.S. and planned and actual attacks in Spain and the U.K. The fight is clearly not over. Where is the next ‘front’ in the War on Terror? Europe? South Asia? Central Asia? I expect the next delibrate involvement against Radical Islam will be in Saudi Arabia – or maybe Pakistan. What do you think?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Iran and Russia Up the Ante, by VnutZ over 5 years ago
- Discover the Networks, by PowerPointSamurai over 5 years ago
- Iran Declares CIA, U.S. Army 'Terrorist Groups', by mikeforbes over 5 years ago
- The Return of Russia as a Superpower, by VnutZ over 5 years ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
Africa by Bortnyk
I think when public support for military adventuring in the middle east dries up, that it will become popular to show your tough on terrorism by calling for intervention in hot spots in Africa. I think it is safe to say that there are very few well trained warlords and militants in Africa, so initially at least, risk of casualties will be low. Hillary Clinton will call for intervention in war torn Sudan or Somalia, a Brigade of America’s finest will muddle about, build a school, and shoot up a Toyota with a machine gun. Ted Kennedy will get a DUI in DC and Barack Obama will praise all the soldiers for their efforts in the fight on terrorism.
How About a "Radio Free Mideast" by Anonymous
We had a Radio Free Europe to counter the Communist propaganda machine. You should see the anti American and anti Israeli garbage that is broadcast throughout the mideast, such as PEPSI = "pay every penny save Israel", and that Jews use human blood to make Matzo balls. If people there could at least get another view than the propaganda they are seeing now, we might have a chance of winning the information war, a war in which the New York Times is on the side of the enemy.
Non PC Pragmatism by guyvia
Chicago. My last trip there [anecdotal, I know] has convinced me that the Muslim faith will be approaching a majority status in inner Chicago within the next 10-20 years. Certainly, not all of Chicago’s Muslims are radicals, but they are much more ‘pushy’ (extreme?; out?; vocal?; I can’t get at the right word…)
Surely, there will be conflicts in all of the places mentioned in the post, and most will be before the conflict in Chicago. I think Chicago will be more important, however, since the radical groups growing in there need not fear a customs officer when conducting their business.
The Coarse is clear by Anonymous
The next hotspot has to be the Iran, we should have taken them out long before the Iraq, I mean they support more Terror Org. in the world then any other Government. Not to mention that They want to build Atom Bombs and ae only a small step away thanks to the Russians.
Thier intollerence for other Religions are unparalled.
Saddam was actually a force against Radical Islam, he feared it himself. But the power of oil was more important I guess.
It's the Economy Stupid! by Occams
The American competitive advantage in any war is its strong economy.
WWII was won when by 1944 the growing economies of the USSR and USA began overwhelming the collapsing economies of Japan and Germany. The UN forced a cease fire in Korea because the USA had more of everything. The Soviet union collapsed because its economy was broken.
In Vietnam our enemies learned a much better way of dealing with us. They found that by avoiding big battles they could use our ecomomy against us while contracting their own economic input to the meagre amount needed ro maintain a force of irregular insurgents.
I bleieve by the 1990s our current foes perfected this strategy in theory but could not implement it until they could find a way to draw the USA into an appropriate sphere of action. By provoking a foolish President into making a war on terror they achieved it. A war on terror is perfectly designed for a tiny force of insurgents to maintain an infinitely long campaign against an economic superpower.
We gave them a way to fight us in which our economic strength will bleed us dry while the enemy coelition of countries needs to put in little more than stirring religious fanaticism and donating surplus small arms and the inexpensive ingredients for bomb makng.
In our usual way we pour in a massive military force with 50% non combatants and hugely expensive and inappropriate weapons like tanks, aircraft and carrier battle groups.
They can keep their input going indefinitely without significant economic impact on any supporting country while we will mortally wound ourselves pouring money and young lives down the toilet without having any effect.
There is no reason for the other side to end this conflict in ten or twenty years. It can continue until the United States wakes up, or can no longer afford it. There is no way for us to win it.
Their strategy is working very well, but we haven’t yet worked out what they are doing to us – or more correctly what we are doing to ourselves.
Iraq was not about terrorism when we went in, but it quickly became so when it was recognised as the best place to implement this economic attack on us. Now we are stuck and our administration does not have the brains to get us out.
Sure, many Iraquis will be hurt if we pull out, but did we realise that by trying to help them we were walking into a trap that would slowly destroy us. When we do realise this should we decide to remain in the trap to keep protecting them.
In Afghanistan the fighting is different but the strategy is the same.
I don’t think this was the deal that the American people made.