Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
I'd say that even terrorist groups/supporters have finite financial and logistical resources. Without cash and the resulting weapons and such, there is less potential for a successful terror attack. If a terrorist leader then has to choose between an attack in the US (far away, dangerous area), or an attack in Iraq (familiar territory, more popular support), he or she is much more likely to attack in Iraq. But of course, that depends on the question if terrorists *have* to choose - I'd say they have to; even they can't attack everywhere at once.
Besides, Iraq is a Muslim country, invaded by infidels. It is much more important to defend Iraq (direct action) than to attack the home base of the invaders (indirect action). It takes a very good strategist to choose an indirect route to victory, because direct action has direct, tangible results, which will make it seem a more attractive approach.
|
That's probably the most well-thought out answer - but I'm not sure of the logic behind it. What I mean is, the original "casus belli" was US troops in Saudi Arabia, and while they were targetted there (Khobar Towers), the majority of terrorist attacks between the end of the first Gulf War and the second were not in Saudi Arabia, not even close. So I don't quite buy the "since it's easier to defend the home turf, we're going to ignore
their home turf" argument.
And as long as our ports and borders continue to remain 99% porous, I'm going to continue to give this administration an "F" in homeland security.