|
Some thoughts:
I agree with your sentiment, but would like you to look beyond the immediate threat.
1) Al-Qaida wasn't only situated in Afghanistan, it's world-wide. That means that your statement that the US could've wiped out AQ by putting in more troops is simply incorrect.
2) Afghanistan basically cannot be subjugated. It's been tried for ages, and nobody has been able to do it so far. What makes you think the US is any different? Sending in hundreds of thousands of troops isn't going to change the situation one bit.
3) Given that AQ is situated all over the world, you cannot hit them all. You can, however, try and stop much of the support they get. Only local governments can really stop these criminals, and some of them need to be persuaded to do that. Attacking Iraq was one way of "persuading" rogue nations to stop supporting AQ. That doesn't mean that Iraq was necessarily doing that, mind you. Invading Iraq has shown hostile countries that the US *will* strike back (in spite of international opposition). If you're the leader of Syria, I'd say you'd be thinking twice about supporting AQ activities today - if the US finds out, you're history.
4) All of it boils down to this: you *cannot* "actually combat our enemies", because those enemies don't play by the rules. They don't belong to any one country, they're not part of a government, they're not wearing any official uniform, and you simply can't find them. They blend into the innocent population worldwide. Direct military force isn't going to work. Intelligence isn't going to work without local (official) support. What was Bush supposed to do? Who do you attack? Who is the enemy?
/counter-rant
|