I'm completely at a loss to understand this line of logic. So essentially I believe you are saying- we get attacked, we don't defend ourselves because the bad guy gets more and more angry when we do defend ourselves and, as a result, we get attacked again because the bad guy never faces a consequence for his or her actions....hmmm seems to me like we lose in that scenario each way and every time. I just want to be clear, your scenario has virtually no result that makes the people who were attacked turn the table on their attackers.
First, we didn't get attacked, the French did. You keep saying "defend" but what you really mean is 10 fold revenge and of course, the genius "pre emptive strike". The idea that for every 10 of our guys they kill, we'll kill 100 of theirs to teach them a lesson and of course the theory that if we blow them up bad enough, they won't be able to attack us at all.
This has been our strategy for dealing with radical terrorist groups since the Reagan era. It hasn't gotten us anywhere really and in fact this policy has only made it worse and worse. Combine this with the brilliant policy of making the enemy of our enemies our friends and we end up with the mess we have. And we still haven't learned and evolved our strategy yet. We still want to do the same ol' same ol' and hope this time it'll somehow work out.
There is a way for France, or us to turn the tables on our attackers. First, inside the borders of France, anything is fair game. Hunt down the attackers and affiliates and do as much harm as possible within the confines of their laws and constitution. Second, use their political goodwill, their money and their influence they have to join with other western powers as well as Russia and build coalitions help the Arab countries that face ISIS build an all Sunni Arab army to attack and finish ISIS in Syria and Iraq and take those lands back.
Again, the big picture is irrelevant in this scenario. I don't particularly care what the enemy thinks is right- they are the enemy. You beet an enemy by force, not by saying to them, " we agree we have not been nice to you in the past so we are sorry." Please, that's why the terrorists continue to thrive- the world has taken a passive approach to this problem and here we are. Did it ever occur to any of you that want to say we should not attack so that we don't fill the ranks with terrorists that the recent rise in terrorism may be a result of a more relaxed policy toward the middle east and these groups? It's a heck of a lot easier to organize these attacks when they are sitting in relative comfort knowing their is little the world does in response to their attacks than it is to plan an attack while running from place to place trying to avoid capture or death.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Up until Obama, we have pretty much done nothing but non stop bombing and attacking and invading and it has bought us nothing but more enemies. The old school, WWII strategy of overwhelming military force when applied to this new 21st century asymmetric battlefield just spreads the problem of international terrorism all over the globe. In short it makes non stop, perpetual war pretty much forever. As we have seen over and over again, WWII style tactics by us and the Russians when dealing with terrorists has lead to their rise all over the planet with no end in sight.
Time to change the strategy. Sadly, Obama is to lame to actually have a strategy and so he plays community organizer and just tries to make all the folks at home happy some how by pulling troops out, but still maintaining random bombing campaigns. The same failed strategy used by Clinton that ultimately brought us 9/11.
By the way, the Paris attacks can be planned, organized and carried out with a lap top in a motel room anywhere in the world. The idea that sending formations of B-52s over Syria to reduce every city there to rubble will stop these plots and plans from happening, is super naive. The better way is with intel. To understand their networks, their supply lines and then destroy them in that motel room face to face with special ops forces and not a guided 2,000 bomb dropped from 35,000 feet. Unfortunately, much of our intelligence gathering ability has been destroyed by Edward Snowden. He really is a traitor of the highest order.
I think you've bought into someone's story line where the US loses no matter what.
No not at all. We can totally win this. My point is, we
will continue to lose no matter what as long as we keep stupidly fighting as though we were fighting Nazis, or Communists with mid 20th century strategies. This is a whole other enemy and a whole other battle.
I also don't think you're on target with regards to motivations. They are motivated by their religion, which states that they must rule the world so that everyone worships Allah the way they do. Anyone who doesn't is fit only to be killed or enslaved. That's the Koran, that's what this sect of Islam believes.
I have to partially disagree. The leadership of these terror movements is motivated by their twisted readings of the Koran and they use Islam to sway the the ignorant into doing things they really don't want to do. However, the rank and file recruits that show up at the ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or Boko Haram, or Taliban doorstep, do so because they want revenge. They want to fight against what they see as injustice. Once they join, religion is used to inspire them and give them confidence that they are doing the right thing and that they are on the right side.
It takes powerful ideas to get ordinary people to do horrible things that are against their nature. So revenge drives people to join, but the religion keeps them there and motivates them to do the unspeakable.
They gave a friendly sign off when they broke off the tail.
