|
Why call it a war? They attacked the Pentagon, and our embassies and the U.S. Cole before that. These may sensibly, reasonably be regarded as acts of war. Especially if they were sponsored by other states. Are you suggesting that these acts don't warrant a military response--especially utilizing our intelligence assets to strike offensively now?
What the Bush administration should be clear with the American public about is that locating terrorists and bringing them to justice (or eliminating them as required) will be primarily an intelligence/special forces/covert operation. I'll bet this will be nothing at all like the Gulf War. I doubt this will be fought like a traditional war.
If nations that are harboring, fostering, and currenly protecting terrorists don't cough up every terrorist cell in their land and 'cut off' all terrorists forever after in the future then, yes, we may have to go to war with some of those other nations. What would be wrong with doing that?
For all we know the Taliban has staged what amounts to a coup in the Arab world by trying to unite the Islamic world under their own rogue, fanatial regime through the recent attacks. The vast majority of the Arab world almost certainly does NOT want WWIII! The Islamic world would lose such a war, and the result would be the end of tremendous power and political influence now wielded by the OPEC nations. I'll bet you anything we get the cooperation of most of the Arab world for our objectives of eliminating terrorism, at least at the catastrophic level we witnessed on Sept. 11th. The incentives are far greater for the Arab world to maintain the status quo with the west than to have an all out "Jihad" with the western world. The Arab nations assisting us still have to maintain outward appearances of course. And, skilled negotiators that they are, no doubt they are cutting some fantastic deals with the U.S. right now.
|