The more agricultural approach to the followers of the Taliban is right. (Kandahar is the center of pomegranate production not Helmand but Helmand was a cash crop area since the 1960s with cotton, peanuts, melon, vegetables etc. (and there is still a government cotton gin in Helmand built by the British in about '65, but none of these crops are getting support from our aid program and central Helmand, the largest irrigation system in the country mostly built with our support between '46-'79 has fallen to the Taliban because of our failure to follow through on projects stated in 02. And the military cannot "win the hearts and minds"of these farmers. They are seen as a non-Muslim foreign military occupational force in support of a marginal central government that many farmers see as an extension of the Soviet occupation...not liberators.Since 02, our military presence has grown, become more obvious, killed more and more civilians as "collateral damage", not supported the ag sector which is the center of the economy and thus supported the recruitment of many of the young unemployed farm laborers into the Taliban movement. We must attempt to redirect our efforts away from our military occupation and focus back on the economy. But it may be too late after too many mistakes and misdirections and blunders.
Hawaiianstyle
· 1 year ago
Terrorism is a CRIME against humanity in general and people in particular.
Defining terrorism as a crime opens the way for ALL the worlds police forces to fight it. It lowers the cost of the solution. It taps into existing organizations, methodologies, and will necessarily promote cooperation among nations. It depoliticizes the solution by stopping the war vs peace debate. It stops the preemptive war nonsense which has lead the US to be, in reality, a rogue nation and an aggressor.
Had the US chosen this route initially instead of the "War on Terrorism" it would have been more successful.
When is the world going to learn that the military is a poor tool when fighting gorilla warfare. It is an especially poor tool when fighting fanatics that are willing to use suicide as a tool. Does anyone remember Viet Nam? Did 9/11 need an army? How will the armed forces protected the US from another 9/11? The answer of course is by taking away the Constitutional rights and the Posse Commitatus act, which is exactly what is occurring.
Further the military solution is way too narrow to defeat the us vs. them, rich vs. poor, have vs. have nots that is the seed bed of terrorism.
We need to get food, health and economic factors into the areas that globalist economies have passed over. We need to demonstrate to these areas and the whole world that we are willing to help them to a better life that terrorism will never lead to. We need to convince mothers that they will be able to raise their children safely in a world that needs education not guns. We need to convince national leaders that we are willing to help without the price tag of either occupation or political dominance.
In short caring humanitarian aid coupled with local police forces supplemented by agreed to and asked for international police force intelligence organizations is the way to win a war on terror, not bombing, shooting and occupation.
Asck
· 1 year ago
Traffic is in fact more of a threat to the security of the U.S. than every terrorist act ever conducted or attempted against the U.S..
TheHeretik
· 1 year ago
The vote against the MCA was good. But the Obama capitulation on FISA in June? Exceedingly disappointing.
Not a numbskull like you
· 1 year ago
If you guys think anything will change in the M-E, think again.
The article is a JOKE for even mentioning the possibility. And as for "Change we can believe in", early indications, judging by Obama's appointments so far, it appears that the only change between Obama and GWB, will not be substantive, but mostly of style.
All Comments
Defining terrorism as a crime opens the way for ALL the worlds police forces to fight it. It lowers the cost of the solution. It taps into existing organizations, methodologies, and will necessarily promote cooperation among nations. It depoliticizes the solution by stopping the war vs peace debate. It stops the preemptive war nonsense which has lead the US to be, in reality, a rogue nation and an aggressor.
Had the US chosen this route initially instead of the "War on Terrorism" it would have been more successful.
When is the world going to learn that the military is a poor tool when fighting gorilla warfare. It is an especially poor tool when fighting fanatics that are willing to use suicide as a tool. Does anyone remember Viet Nam? Did 9/11 need an army? How will the armed forces protected the US from another 9/11? The answer of course is by taking away the Constitutional rights and the Posse Commitatus act, which is exactly what is occurring.
Further the military solution is way too narrow to defeat the us vs. them, rich vs. poor, have vs. have nots that is the seed bed of terrorism.
We need to get food, health and economic factors into the areas that globalist economies have passed over. We need to demonstrate to these areas and the whole world that we are willing to help them to a better life that terrorism will never lead to. We need to convince mothers that they will be able to raise their children safely in a world that needs education not guns. We need to convince national leaders that we are willing to help without the price tag of either occupation or political dominance.
In short caring humanitarian aid coupled with local police forces supplemented by agreed to and asked for international police force intelligence organizations is the way to win a war on terror, not bombing, shooting and occupation.
The article is a JOKE for even mentioning the possibility. And as for "Change we can believe in", early indications, judging by Obama's appointments so far, it appears that the only change between Obama and GWB, will not be substantive, but mostly of style.