Obama?????

[Lycurgus]

I agree with Obama, more attention needs to be given to Afghanistan and our efforts need to be seriously stepped up. The question is, how is he going to use this influx of new troops?

I think we all understand why a surge, as done in Iraq will not work here. Further, the Pakistan issue plays into this in a big way. Politically they are not a stable nation to begin with, how far do we go in forcing the issue with a unstable nation which has nukes? And currently has serious problems with their foe, India.

People would speak about how long we might be in Iraq, as that is a concern, the real question is how long will we be in Afghanistan. Personally I see it as another Korea, only with our role being much more active and on a larger scale.

As it would be nice to get our hands on Bin Ladin, he is not at the root of our battle with terrorism, it has long evolved past him and our efforts have neutralized him fairly well. He is now nothing but a historic figure head which if killed would do little to harm terrorist efforts.

Bush knew this and Obama will learn this.

So, what does Obama do, any thoughts?

 

[editec]

Treat Al Qada as what it is...a criminal organziation with political ambitions.

 

[dilloduck]

Treat Al Qada as what it is...a criminal organziation with political ambitions.

But it's a criminal organization in other countries who won't, don't or can't capture or convict them.

 

[editec]

Treat Al Qada as what it is...a criminal organziation with political ambitions.

But it's a criminal organization in other countries who won't, don't or can't capture or convict them.

Yeah, or cannot catch them, I agree.

I think treating terrorists rather like we treat pirates makes good sense.

Hopefully, American troops can pursure Al Qada into Pakistani territory without upsetting the political balance in that nation.

The Pakis admit that they do not control those territories where the terrorist find refuge, after all, so they should not have a problem if we turn that area into a free fire zone.

It might be a good idea if we ask them to remove any innocent citizens, of course, but I rather doubt they'll go for it.

But as to tracking down and eliminating anyone involved in terrorist acts against the USA?

I say go for it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Treat Al Qada as what it is...a criminal organziation with political ambitions.

No, al Qaeda is a stateless political organization that uses the same methods a state actor would when going to war. In fact, even calling it stateless is misleading since it claims to be acting of behalf of a soon to be re established Caliphate.

 

[Munin]

I think Obama will let the tactics up to David Petraeus, so the question will be more what Petraeus is going to do with those troops (30 000 US troops are going to be added to the 19 000 US troops we have now).

I do think the troops will have a positive inpact on the situation on the ground, troops in Afghanistan had and still have a problem with covering too big areas with too few people. Politically it will certainly not have the same effects as in Iraq, but it will have an impact in solving the issues that US troops had since they started with the defensive operations (occupation) in Afghanistan.

 

[editec]

Treat Al Qada as what it is...a criminal organziation with political ambitions.

No, al Qaeda is a stateless political organization that uses the same methods a state actor would when going to war. In fact, even calling it stateless is misleading since it claims to be acting of behalf of a soon to be re established Caliphate.

Well make up your mind.

Are they stateless or aren't they?

If they're agents of a nation, then by all means let's declare war on that nation.

If not, (and I think they take orders from no national government) then they have the same status as pirates.

Their political ambitions, while interesting, have little to do with how we have to treat them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Treat Al Qada as what it is...a criminal organziation with political ambitions.

No, al Qaeda is a stateless political organization that uses the same methods a state actor would when going to war. In fact, even calling it stateless is misleading since it claims to be acting of behalf of a soon to be re established Caliphate.

Well make up your mind.

Are they stateless or aren't they?

If they're agents of a nation, then by all means let's declare war on that nation.

If not, (and I think they take orders from no national government) then they have the same status as pirates.

Their political ambitions, while interesting, have little to do with how we have to treat them.

In their minds al Qaeda is the army of the Caliphate, which is occupied at the moment, and its provisional government, and they are working to liberate the Caliphate from its occupiers and their allies. In this respect, al Qaeda is the same as government in exile of de Gaulle and the Free French Army during WWII. Was de Gaulle a criminal and were the French soldiers under his command criminals because they didn't control a nation yet?

If all you really mean to say is that you want al Qaeda prisoners processed through our criminal justice system, there is really no need to try to justify it by saying they are pirates and criminals because they are not presently in control of what the think of as their nation. That is a good or bad idea depending on how it serves our national security needs.