The best move in combatting terrorism, a look forward

[Bern80]

Couple thoughts. I think most can agree at this point that the main focus of the U.S. military needs to be on fighting Islamic extremism and terrorism. Some will disagree as to whether the most effective of way of doing that is to be in Iraq right now. Many on the left say they opt for redeployment. But think about that. that doesn't really jive "we want to bring the troops home." I mean redeployment, is redeplyment. Many of them may not be comeing home, they just wouldn't be in Iraq. I'm all for redeployment of the dems mean it. However I'm not sure they really mean that. My guess is they just want to get the troops home and keep them here and 'redeploy' is the word their using for that so it sounds as though they have a more efficient plan in mind.

So what is the best move? Many who call themselves members of the right say to redeploy troops is surrender. Personally I don't see how that can be the case. there isn't anything to surrender. So let's say we redeploy and I guess what I would mean by that is that we use our forces in teh most effective way possible to combat terrorists. What would that look like?

Here's a crazier thought; maybe redeployment would/should still constitute a very large contingent of our troops remaining in Iraq. We can still tell the Iraqi government that their time is up and that we will no longer be directly militarily involved. At the same time the Middle East is the heart of Islamic extremism and it isn't a bad idea to have a base of operations there. And since we already basically have one in Iraq we may as well just stay there dont' you think?

 

[Annie]

Couple thoughts. I think most can agree at this point that the main focus of the U.S. military needs to be on fighting Islamic extremism and terrorism. Some will disagree as to whether the most effective of way of doing that is to be in Iraq right now. Many on the left say they opt for redeployment. But think about that. that doesn't really jive "we want to bring the troops home." I mean redeployment, is redeplyment. Many of them may not be comeing home, they just wouldn't be in Iraq. I'm all for redeployment of the dems mean it. However I'm not sure they really mean that. My guess is they just want to get the troops home and keep them here and 'redeploy' is the word their using for that so it sounds as though they have a more efficient plan in mind.

So what is the best move? Many who call themselves members of the right say to redeploy troops is surrender. Personally I don't see how that can be the case. there isn't anything to surrender. So let's say we redeploy and I guess what I would mean by that is that we use our forces in teh most effective way possible to combat terrorists. What would that look like?

Here's a crazier thought; maybe redeployment would/should still constitute a very large contingent of our troops remaining in Iraq. We can still tell the Iraqi government that their time is up and that we will no longer be directly militarily involved. At the same time the Middle East is the heart of Islamic extremism and it isn't a bad idea to have a base of operations there. And since we already basically have one in Iraq we may as well just stay there dont' you think?

Call me crazy, but this seems to be the yahoo news response to 'generals' new strategy.'

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Redeploy to WHERE? Fight the terrorists WHERE? There is no AQ in Afghanistan, the Taliban is just Afghanistan.

In order to "redeploy" to fight the terrorists else where we would need to INVADE someone else. Who shall we invade?

 

[Bern80]

Redeploy to WHERE? Fight the terrorists WHERE? There is no AQ in Afghanistan, the Taliban is just Afghanistan.

In order to "redeploy" to fight the terrorists else where we would need to INVADE someone else. Who shall we invade?

Which brings us back to my original question: Is what we're doing now the most effective means of fighting terrorsim?

 

[manu1959]

Which brings us back to my original question: Is what we're doing now the most effective means of fighting terrorsim?

nope we should be killing them faster.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Which brings us back to my original question: Is what we're doing now the most effective means of fighting terrorsim?

We should raise at least 30 more Army brigades, 3 to 6 more Marine regiments, 3 Brigades of Airborne, 6 to 10 battalions of Special Forces/Rangers, we should increase the navy to 600 ships, we should add 4 wings of Fighter aircraft, 4 wings of stealth bombers, 6 to 10 wings of transport aircraft, 8 to 12 more amphibious troop ships and return to 16 Air Craft carriers.

Once we have done that we should announce that any country that supports, trains, defends , hides or pays terrorists we will take to task. A list should be made of the Countries we are threatening. They are rated by worst to least dangerous and we give them 1 year to change their stance. At the end of the year if they have failed to adapt to the new order, we bomb those we can, we invade those we must and we seize all assets of those countries. We make no promise to rebuild anything.

If other Countries want to help, fine, if they do not, so what. If they get in our way we take appropriate action.

We need to develop small water craft capable of providing support and carrying up to 40 troops for insertion along rivers and coast lines. We need new armed helicopters that are fast and armed to the teeth, able to engage land, air and sea craft.

We need to take this war seriously and we need to shut down open support from Countries for terrorists. Once that is done we can work on aiding and helping those countries fighting terrorists.

With this we need, as a country, to remake our steel industry, our ship building Industry and our military industry. We need to become less dependant on foreign products to the best of our ability. That means return to manufacturing in this country and building Nuclear power plants and getting serious about alternate power sources. All of this needs to be accomplished while maintaining our current standards ( and improving them) on pollution and emissions.

This will require a major commitment on the part of all mainstream political entities. These things can not happen quickly.

In other words until certain people get their heads out of their asses we will continue to "lose" the war. When a large segment of the political power in this country is more interested in personal power and not interested in National Defense we can not win.

We can not return to the idea that police can handle this problem, we can not become isolationist, we need to seal our borders and overhaul our immigration policies.

I doubt any of this will happen any time soon. Until the right level of understanding of the threat occur, to many people think they can ignore the problem and it will go away, or that we can appease our enemies. I suspect until a nuclear bomb goes off or a major biological or chemical attack occurs we will continue to pretend this is a game. In other words until hundreds of thousands die or millions the parties involved will continue to play petty politics and personal power games.