<HTML>ISHMAEL wrote:
[...]
> I am talking about eliminating the iraqi STATE - not
> eliminating the Iraqi PEOPLE. That is precisely why I used
> the word "State."
You didn't – you used the word "state", small 's'. There is a great deal of difference between "State" (= "government", as in 'The State of California vs. [insert name of defendant]') which is what you say that you meant) and "state" (= 'community subject to one government", which is what you <b>actually</b> wrote). The latter consists of people, so don't be surprised if Claire thought, as did I, that you meant what you wrote.
Whichever you originally meant, you seem determined to ignore what your Secretary of State and Defense Secretary have been saying now for several days, i.e. that a war against terrorism is a new kind of warfare.
Military might has rarely brought about lasting solutions to national or international problems, and there is precisely zero evidence to support a contention that it would be any different in a fight against terrorism. In any war, it is essential to do your utmost to understand what motivates your enemy; a war against terrorism is almost certainly no different in this respect, and what follows is based on this being a valid assumption.
Military force is of course necessary for destroying the physical/military assets of terrorist organisations, as well as their leaders and any supporting oganisation, and I don't think that anyone is disputing this (although there are some bigoted buffoons who seem determined interpret anything that is not 100% gung-ho as being anti-American and giving succour to her enemies). However, the military occupation of 'suspect' states, which you have argued for on several occasions, can only be conterproductive if the <i>real</i> aim is to win a war against <b>terrorism</b>. Support for terrorism thrives where there is a perceived reason for it to thrive and it will wither without that support. Any action that increases the support for terrorism must be conter-productive. In this case, the support of a majority of reasonable Arab (probably, given the evidence so far) civilians <b>must</b> be sought and nurtured; they must be given reasons (and that does <i>not</i> include threat of annihilation, which will almost certainly have the opposite effect) not to support terrorism. When that happens, the terroists will have no home.
What we most certainly do not need (and again I assume that the aim is to win a war against terrorism) is a series of 'Hydra' actions in which you kill one terrorist but your methods cause another dozen to rise in his place. I submit to you that armies of occupation contribute to the 'Hydra' phenomenon, as will indiscriminate military actions that lead to a lot of 'collateral damage' (i.e. that appalling euphemism we use to try to kid ourselves that we are not killing innocent human beings). Look at your own response to the filth who bombed your country last Tuesday, then surely you will see the supreme illogic of expecting to win people's support by bombing them.
Your Secretary of State has already recognised that this war will be fought on a number of fronts; in a war against terrorism one of those fronts must be that of winning the hearts and minds of potential supporters of terrorism, i.e. a socio-economic front.
Ask yourself, ISHMAEL, whether you want an enduring solution (with all that is implied in both words) to a serious global problem, or if all that you want is revenge. I say this because I have seen nothing in your suggestions that would contribute to a lasting solution to the problem of international terrorism, but a great deal that would result in needless loss of life amongst both your own people and those whose nations you wish to be invaded, and which would almost certainly increase support for the very terrorism to which you say that you want an end.
> No. Our primary target MUST be the states that fund these
> activities, and primarily, the one state that was behind this
> most recent attack - which now appears to be Iraq.
Mere days ago you were asserting with certainty that it was Afghanistan. This is a prize example of why jumping to conclusions without hard evidence is a mugs' game.
>
> The Taliban and Iraqi governments must be toppled by
> invasion, while simultaniously, special forces operations are
> launched against the training camps
Amazing! When, a few days ago, I suggested special forces ops your reaction was that I was 'preaching' and displaying, what was it ... 'breathtaking self-righteousness' or something? What has changed?
> Bin Ladin is a patsey.
Yet again you underestimate your enemy.
Mind you, I don't know why I let your silly suggestions get to me – the influence of what we write here on the decisions of our respective governments and on the nature of the military action that must inevitably occur is precisely zero.</HTML>
