This brings home just how delicate the threshold we are standing on actually is.
The scary thing is, a lot of this makes a lot of sense, and it means that we'll have to do more then simply sit in airplanes dropping mega tonnes of explosives if we're really serious about solving this.
However,
Quote:
...The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first...
|
How is this course of action any better then bombing innocents? Pakistan has been in receipt of American aid for many years, what possible good could come from invading them? I suppose that's the point of what he is saying.
Is he therefore suggesting that a satisfactory conclusion to this campaign against terrorism cannot come about without a war between Islam and The West? If that is the case then I sincerely hope he is wrong. I'm sure I'm not alone in my assumption that there are other ways to eliminate targets on the ground without the use of either missiles/bombs or massive amounts of troops. Saying that, my knowledge of contemporary military tactics is sketchy to say the least.
Still, is there no hope here? Are we looking at a full-scale war before this over?
I pray we are not.
------------------
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure."