cnorman,
I respect you as a fellow American and a fellow shooter, and the fact that we disagree on some matters of political theory is of little consequence compared to what we have in common. If I have, or seemed to have, insulted you personally in any way, I apologize; such was never my intent. I hope that some day we will meet at the range; we will have a fine old time yelling at each other and shooting at the targets--and not, of course, the other way round....
Thank you, and I return the respect in kind.
The reason I posted this little missive was to explain that although the Paul doctrine ( I just made that up
) as it relates to terrorism may seem foreign, perhaps naive or even cowardly when viewed through the prism of your perspective, it's really not.
It makes perfect sense to Dr. Paul and his supporters including myself, because we see the problem from a different angle. You no doubt disagree with it just as I disagree with your perspective, and there we are.
I will admit, though--as I did in my initial post to this thread--that it was successful in the case of the IRA, and would be useful in countering any politically-based terrorist group.
Which I maintain is every terrorist group.
My point is rather elementary: every conflict with terrorists, like every war, is different. One ought not use the same playbook in every such conflict any more than one should use the same strategy in every war.
Which I fundamentally agree with. It does help to actually
have the opposition's playbook, which we do.
The very reason that the attack on 9/11 was so successful, whatever 20/20 hindsight may allege, is that it involved a plan of attack that no one had ever seen before and for which no one was prepared. The threat from AQ et. al. is qualitatively, as well as tactically, different from any threat we have ever faced.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that AQ is fundamentally different from other terrorist threats in any way that materially hampers our strategy. I think that the reason that 9/11 was so spectacularly effective is because nobody expected them to actually do something so spectacularly dumb. That attack very nearly
destroyed Al Qaeda at the outset. The only thing that saved them was our own spectacularly inept response.
Al Qaeda has shown itself to be less politically savvy than the ordinary terrorist organization (which is saying a lot). We have uniformly failed to capitalize on that, failed to recognize our successes when we've had them, and failed to capitalize on their mistakes when they've made them.
This is the weakness of the current administration, and as good a reason as any to vote for change (except, of course voting for a Dem who has no plan at all). It's well-nigh impossible to do worse than we've done thus far. The terrorists have never had a victory we didn't hand them. They've had many, many victories.
I see in a later post that you do not think we should take bin Laden at his word regarding his aims for jihad. No offense intended, but I think that view has more to do with forcing bin Laden to fit your paradigm than for any rational or logical reason.
Not at all. I think if anything it's the other way around. It's your perspective that leads you to misunderstand, hence why their methods seem like chaotic madness to you. That's why so many people around here mistake their behavior as insanity.
You see, I have no problem thinking like them. Their behavior makes perfect sense to me because they're merely doing exactly what I would do in their shoes. That is not to say that I sympathize with them, merely that (as Chris Rock once said) "I understand".
Many on this forum are reluctant to place themselves in the mind of the enemy. Perhaps they're afraid of what they'll find out. Perhaps they're afraid of being branded terrorist sympathizers. Whatever the reason, I don't share that reluctance and don't mind admitting it. I've cheered the movie Red Dawn. I've deeply enjoyed the book Unintended Consequenses. I have, in my service, been willing to lay my life on the line for a cause. I understand them because they're fundamentally just like me.
They don't want to talk to us. That doesn't fit their plans. They must be seen by their identity group, however, as having made the attempt. It's sandbox finger-pointing writ large. Even that missive about "converting to Islam" was grossly misinterpreted if you actually read the release (which I did).
That wasn't for us. It was for them. Much like when Nancy Pelosi writes an "open letter" to the president it's not really for him, but for the press.
It can
all be interpreted. The supposedly random dots can resolve themselves into a floating 3 dimensional image. But only if you look at it correctly. Your government has a vested political interest in not telling you this stuff. You have an emotional interest in not acknowledging what I'm saying. Fair 'nuff.
How do I know I'm right? I don't. But history seems to be on my side. What makes me think you're wrong? Aside from the above, the scorecard (2 wars going badly, a third on the way, 4,000 dead, a trillion dollars gone in exchange for the death and capture of "hundreds" of AQ operatives and their numbers are *increasing*) tells me that the current way of doing things doesn't seem to work very well.