...And In Conclusion

This is a short, short follow-up to the previous epic length post about the Middle East.

First, thanks to all who commented. I was looking for alternative ideas and they came a-flowing. I don't have all the answers, just good guesses I suppose.

So I basically got two dirrerent alternative solutions to the Islamic terrorist problem. One being that basically full scale land invasions are passe' and ineffective. The money spent on the invasion would have been better spent on covert-ops and overhauling our intelligence forces so they meet the new challenges of the 21st century. Along those same lines, combat should have been limited to strategic sites based on terrorist locations, like Pakistan.

The other, and this came from two of my family members, was more philosophical. My dad wants the human race to evolve, which it is incapably of doing so long as we continue to practice "might makes right". Essentially pre-emptive war is the 21st century version of said, "might makes right". My dad, martyr that he is, stated that he's willing to, "take a nuke on the head," to preserve the moral high ground for the US. Pre-emptive war in his opinion cedes moral authority and stunts emtional growth as a world-wide populace. My uncle thinks we can beat Islamic fundamentalists with money and rock-n-roll...which is his solution to everything...he's an guitar player from the hippy dippy 60's.

On the subject of covert-ops, we've already been doing that. Slowly but surely our intelligence is improving and terrorist cells are being smashed from Portugal to Australia, from Norway to South Africa. It isn't perfect and there are certainly more cells and potential cells than there are agents but that's how it's going to be until more Muslims start turning on the fundamentalists and choosing a side.

On Pakistan, they've been the quiet little helper nobody ever talks about. I remember right after 9/11 when Bush said, "You're either with us or with the terrorist," and then they showed a clip of a wide-eyed President Musharraf swearing alleigance to the US. Since that time, "Musharraf said security forces had captured about 700 al-Qaeda suspects since late 2001 when Pakistan started its crackdown. Most are thought to have been handed over to the United States.

"Their back has been broken, they are on the run," Musharraf said." (credit brunei-online.com)

Obviously we've had our problems with them too but it's not an easy situation in his country. Musharraf has exposed himself to a hostile public in order to comply with US requests. The man is risking death from his own people because if he hadn't gotten on board with the US we probably would have gone into Pakistan as some folks had suggested we should have. We didn't because we had his full (or as full as he could provide) cooperation.

I'm willing to except that Iraq and a requisite response to 9/11 are not one and the same. In fact that was half of my argument, that an invasion of Iraq was on the table before 9/11 even happened. Having invaded Iraq, being there gives us the opprotunity to lean on other countries and apply pressure where it's needed. It also forces the hand of the ruling classes in the region, where before they could afford to play both sides (us and the fundamentalists) against one another while retaining their authority.

For example, according to Newsmax.com, "CAIRO, Egypt - Syria, long blamed for Middle East mayhem, seems to be bowing to U.S.-led international pressure to shed its image as a sponsor of regional instability.

Iraqi authorities say Syria - accused among other things of aiding anti-Israeli extremists and fanning the insurgency in Iraq - handed over Saddam Hussein's feared half brother, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan. The decision came as an apparent goodwill gesture to ease tensions with the United States, which has demanded Damascus stop aiding Mideast militants and withdraw its 15,000 soldiers from neighboring Lebanon."

This is why we're there. Right or wrong it comes down the US moving in to the Middle East and throwing our weight around in the hopes that we'll see results from the Arab ruling elite. Now it would seem, judging from the theme of responses that I got on my previous post and the conversations I've had that leaning on countries and muscling them in to carrying out our will simply will not do and it is absolutely a violation of soveriegn rights. Probably, but I guess that's the philosophical difference between our two idealogical camps. Half of you are willing to stick to your ideals and preserve the moral high-ground, regardless of cost (and my dad will even take a nuke on the head just to prove a point).

The rest of us are just not that noble. The rest of us are Jack Nicholson from, "A Few Good Men."

I'm glad there two camps of thought. I'm glad half the country thinks we're imperialists or whatever. After more than a week of mulling this over in my head I've come to realize that even if half of the country is dead wrong, the constant nagging and arguing keeps the rest of honest.