Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[Britney Spears]

  If you meant to ask what the demands of the terrorists are, does it matter?  Youi stated that the US should stop calling the insurgents "terrorists".  We responded that, as long as they use terrorist tactics, we'll  keep calling them terrorists.  What do their demands matter to what we call them?

Umm, yes, that would be my question, which I shall repeat here: What are the demands of those kidnapping civillians?

Their demands are that a foreign army of occupation leave their homeland. Since there is no doubt that the US occupation is just that, their demands don't seem to me to be so horribly unreasonable. Its a matter of semantics I suppose, but as they say, one man's terrorist is another man's....

You don't think funding terrorists is a good reason to go after someone?  Well, I don't really have much to say in response to that.  I'll just point out that Bush did promise to go after ALL terrorist groups, not just those attacking the US.

No, I think going after terrorists who are an actual threat the the security of the US (and by extension, Canada) is probably a more pressing concern. While the eradication of all forms of terrorism world wide is a noble ideal, I don't think we're quite "there" yet. You're also implying that the Palestinian cause is completely illegitimate, which is, well, debatable. Considering that the vast majority of funding for Palestinian terrorist groups come from <a href=http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/levitt/levitt082503.htm>Saudi Arabia</a> , this isn't even on the chart as long as we're talking about "reasons to invade Iraq".


Oh, and this one goes out to my # 1 fan, Ghost778

 

[48Highlander]

Their demands are that a foreign army of occupation leave their homeland. Since there is no doubt that the US occupation is just that, their demands don't seem to me to be so horribly unreasonable. Its a matter of semantics I suppose, but as they say, one man's terrorist is another man's....

    Welll, considering that a lot of them afre foreigners themselves, I'd say that such a demand coming from those factions IS pretty unreasonable.  "This isn't my country, but I want you out!".  As for the rest....the US has already promised to get out once they've helped restore some semblance of order and a polytical system.  What those insurgents are really demanding is for the US to get out RIGHT NOW so that the political or religious groups which the insurgents support can go about killing Iraqis and attempting to set themselves up as the ruling power.  Which, while not unreasonable, isn't a good thing, and deffinitely isn't something the US should allow.

No, I think going after terrorists who are an actual threat the the security of the US (and by extension, Canada) is probably a more pressing concern. While the eradication of all forms of terrorism world wide is a noble ideal, I don't think we're quite "there" yet. You're also implying that the Palestinian cause is completely illegitimate, which is, well, debatable. Considering that the vast majority of funding for Palestinian terrorist groups come from <a href=http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/levitt/levitt082503.htm>Saudi Arabia</a> , this isn't even on the chart as long as we're talking about "reasons to invade Iraq".

    You're right, going after terrorists who are a threat to the US is a more pressing concern.  I didn't say that Sadam's funding of Palestinian terrorists was the only reason the US went into Iraq, I just said it was a good reason.  One of many.  So unless you think that Sadam was right to fund Palestinian terrorism, I'd say you agree with my statement.  Right?

    I will agree though that Saudi Arabia is a problem.  Osama is Saudi after all.  The US would have probably had more of an affect on world terrorism if they had gone into Saudi Arabia.  Invading Iraq was easier to justify though, and it was still an important target.  Can you imagine the reaction if they'd tried invading Saudi Arabia instead?

 

[CivU]

"a couple crazy brits running around with swords"

Does this accurately describe the crusades? I think not...

"If you DON'T think that attacks against the US have been justified, what exactly are you trying to prove?  Why bring up possible motives for such attacks if you don't think that those motives justify the attacks themselves?"

I didn't state whethere the attacks are justified or not; however, without acknowleding that the US has implications in the tensions and conflicts that surround the attacks, we cannot begin to determine why they would have happened.

"I'll just point out that Bush did promise to go after ALL terrorist groups, not just those attacking the US."

I don't see Bush attempting to address the presence of terrorists within America who might be involved in such atrocities as the Oklahoma City Bombing, such as Christian Fundamentalists/Extremists.

"For the rest of those interested in where some of these ideas are coming from here is an example of Mr. Blum's "reasoned" discourses on US foreign policy:"

If America is justified in attacking any persons who aid and abbet terrorists, then how are a number of people on Mr. Blum's list not also culpable in the same acts.  Anyone involved in the Reagan administrations anti-communist sweep of Latin America or the massacres in East Timor certainly have as much blood on their hands as does Saddam Hussein...they supported violent campaigns financially and militarily, not unlike the persons who support Al Qaeda the War on Terror presently persues.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

"I'll just point out that Bush did promise to go after ALL terrorist groups, not just those attacking the US."

Sheesh. Give 'em a chance. It's like being a friend of Bill's. One day at a time, man. One day at a time. This won't be over in our lifetime. Friggin' "I want it now generation" needs to learn the meaning of patience. Like the old punchline. "Why run down the hill and get one, when we can walk down the hill and get them all".


EDIT: Sorry, pasted the wrong quote. Certain responses are so confusing and unfounded, it's easy to make a mistake. :

 

[McG]

CivU,
Are you defending that entire list of "war criminals"? Like this entry:
"General Norman Schwarzkopf, for his military leadership of the Iraqi carnage"

 

[Britney Spears]

Welll, considering that a lot of them afre foreigners themselves, I'd say that such a demand coming from those factions IS pretty unreasonable.

Sure, there are foreigners amongst them, but unless you're claiming that the Iraqi insurgency is a completely foreign intervention (by whom? the Syrians? Al-qaida?), my point still stands. 

What those insurgents are really demanding is for the US to get out RIGHT NOW so that the political or religious groups which the insurgents support can go about killing Iraqis and attempting to set themselves up as the ruling power.  Which, while not unreasonable, isn't a good thing, and deffinitely isn't something the US should allow.

You're doing it(the circular argument) again. The only reason this is happening is because of the US invasion!  Do you see now why it was such a Bad Idea For Everyone(tm)? 

I will agree though that Saudi Arabia is a problem.  Osama is Saudi after all.  The US would have probably had more of an affect on world terrorism if they had gone into Saudi Arabia.  Invading Iraq was easier to justify though, and it was still an important target.  Can you imagine the reaction if they'd tried invading Saudi Arabia instead?

Now you're dangling a red herring. "because we don't have an excuse( well, other than that whole Bin Laden-/9/11 thing) to invade Saudi Arabia" is not a reason for invading Iraq.

 

[McG]

Iraq casts wary eye at neighbours
Associated Press  
POSTED AT 5:37 AM EST  
Wednesday, Dec 15, 2004
Globe & Mail  

Baghdad â ” Iraq's defence minister on Wednesday accused neighbouring Iran and Syria of supporting terrorists in his war-ravaged country.

Hazem Shaalan also accused Iran of backing the al-Qaeda in Iraq terrorist group headed by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and said his country's opponents want â Å“turbaned clerics to rule in Iraq.â ?

Mr. Shaalan said Iraqi authorities obtained information about Iran's role in Iraqi's insurgency after last month's arrest of the leader of the Jaish Mohammed (Mohammed's Army) terrorist group during U.S.-led operations in Fallujah.

â Å“When we arrested the commander of Jaish Mohammed we discovered that key to terrorism is in Iran, which this the number one enemy for Iraq,â ? Mr. Shaalan told reporters in Baghdad.

On Nov. 15, Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said American forces detained Jaish Mohammed members, including the organization's leader, Moayad Ahmed Yasseen, also known as Abu Ahmed, during the military operation to uproot insurgents based in Fallujah, west of Baghdad.

Mr. Allawi has said the group was known to have co-operated with Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda and Saddam loyalists and has claimed responsibility for killing and beheading a number of Iraqis, Arabs and foreigners in Iraq.

The U.S. military has said in the past that Jaish Mohammed appears to be an umbrella group for former intelligence agents, army, security officials, and Baath Party members.

Mr. Shaalan accused Iranian and Syrian intelligence agents, plus operatives of deposed leader Saddam Hussein's security forces, of â Å“co-operating with the al-Zarqawi group to run criminal operations in Iraq,â ? adding that Syria and Iran was providing funds and training.

Both countries have previously rejected U.S. and Iraqi claims that they are supporting insurgents in Iraq. Damascus, however, has said it is unable to fully close its long, porous border with Iraq.

â Å“They are fighting us because we want to build freedom and democracy and they want to build an Islamic dictatorship and have turbaned clerics to rule in Iraq,â ? he said, providing no further details.

 

[48Highlander]

Does this accurately describe the crusades? I think not...

Correct me if I'm wrong but the number of crusaders was far inferior to the number of Muslims, and the Brits got their butts handed to 'em.  My description may be a wee bit inaccurate, but the sentiment wasn't.

I didn't state whethere the attacks are justified or not; however, without acknowleding that the US has implications in the tensions and conflicts that surround the attacks, we cannot begin to determine why they would have happened.

Does it matter?  Yeah it's good to know the motivation of those who want to kill you, but only in order to stop them.  If someone shoves a gun in my face, I don't really care what his motivations are.  I can either comply with his demands and hope he doesn't kill me anyway, or I can attempt to fight back.  What do I care wether he wants to kill me because I'm a decadent capitalist, or because he wants my wallet?  As long as I know his attack on me is unjustified, all I'm concerned with is removing the threat.

I don't see Bush attempting to address the presence of terrorists within America who might be involved in such atrocities as the Oklahoma City Bombing, such as Christian Fundamentalists/Extremists.

Timmy was arrested, tried, and concivted.  He wasn't part of an organization.  Case closed.

Police forces in the US deal with terrorism, Bush doesn't need to create new policy for it.  They also deal with religious nutbars all the time.  Remember Wako?

If America is justified in attacking any persons who aid and abbet terrorists, then how are a number of people on Mr. Blum's list not also culpable in the same acts.  Anyone involved in the Reagan administrations anti-communist sweep of Latin America or the massacres in East Timor certainly have as much blood on their hands as does Saddam Hussein...they supported violent campaigns financially and militarily, not unlike the persons who support Al Qaeda the War on Terror presently persues.

If you start going back through history you'll come to the conclusion that every nation on earth is guilty of the same thing.  Just depends on how far back you go.  What matters to Bush is the here and now.  As long as the US isn't currently engaged in sponsoring terrorist activity, that's good enough for me.  If on the other hand Bush decides to start making donations to the IRA tomorrow, I'll be right beside you yelling for his head.  I'm not a big fan of hypocrisy either, but blaming Bush for something that happened during the Reagen administration is a little foolish.

 

[48Highlander]

You're doing it(the circular argument) again. The only reason this is happening is because of the US invasion!  Do you see now why it was such a Bad Idea For Everyone(tm)? 

Negative.  Ofcourse that's the only reason it's happening.  That's what happens whenever an opressive government is overthrown.  Does that mean all oppressive governments should be left alone?

Now you're dangling a red herring. "because we don't have an excuse( well, other than that whole Bin Laden-/9/11 thing) to invade Saudi Arabia" is not a reason for invading Iraq.

Now you're the one doing the selective hearing bit   I didn't say it was a reason for invading Iraq, I said it was a reason for NOT invading Saudi Arabia.  I listed plenty of reasons for attacking Iraq.

 

[McG]

Considering that the vast majority of funding for Palestinian terrorist groups come from Saudi Arabia , this isn't even on the chart as long as we're talking about "reasons to invade Iraq".

This is your red herring.  That something needs to be done in Saudi Arabia is not in dispute.  However, Iraq is not to be excused because there was a worse offender.  Political relations between Saudi Arabia and the west are much better than were the relations with Iraq.  With Saudi Arabia there were (and still are) political options available.  Those options had failed in Iraq and it was time for a military solution.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

CivU,

I've got a question for you. You're an OCdt, going through ROTP. IF the Canadian government ever decides to back the US in this, what, as an Officer in the CF, will you do about it? What will be your choice?

 

[Britney Spears]

That's what happens whenever an opressive government is overthrown.

Cite?

Now you're the one doing the selective hearing bit Tongue  I didn't say it was a reason for invading Iraq, I said it was a reason for NOT invading Saudi Arabia.  I listed plenty of reasons for attacking Iraq

This is your red herring.  That something needs to be done in Saudi Arabia is not in dispute.  However, Iraq is not to be excused because there was a worse offender.  Political relations between Saudi Arabia and the west are much better than were the relations with Iraq.  With Saudi Arabia there were (and still are) political options available.  Those options had failed in Iraq and it was time for a military solution.

Take a step back here. It was YOUR assertion that Saddam's funding of Palestinian terrorist groups was a reason for the invasion of Iraq. I dispute this on the basis that if our purpose was to fight Palestinian terrorism in Israel, then invading Iraq is probably the worst way of doing it ever, not to mention that Palestinian terrorism poses no threat to the security of the US/Canada.
Shall we agree, then, that the "Palestinian" reason is no longer viable?

 

[CivU]

CivU,
Are you defending that entire list of "war criminals"? Like this entry:
"General Norman Schwarzkopf, for his military leadership of the Iraqi carnage"

No, I'm not.  I did mention the Reagan administration and those involved with East Timor as specifically deplorable examples.  The invasion of Panama by George H.W. Bush could also fall under the aforementioned category...As for Schwarzkopf, from what I gather of Mr. Blum's argument it is largely based around his use of Uranium depleted ammunition and the horrific effects it has had on both American troops and continues to have within Iraq itself.  I do not think a General's leadership in an invasion itself can be considered a war crime.

As for Timotyh McVeigh, he was actually affiliate with several groups through the Elhom City compound, an anti-government sanctuary.  These groups included the Aryan Republican Army and the Christian Identity movements.  In fact, they all refferred to the same gospel, a book known as the "Turner Diaries" written by William Pierce.  I guess it isn't case closed.

"As long as the US isn't currently engaged in sponsoring terrorist activity, that's good enough for me"

America continues to train Latin American para-military forces at the Fort Benning, Georgia, School of the Americas to carry out repressive acts in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and to this day, Colombia.  If you look into the American involvement in Colombia you may see that the United States is currently engaged in sponsoring terrorist activity.  

"I've got a question for you. You're an OCdt, going through ROTP. IF the Canadian government ever decides to back the US in this, what, as an Officer in the CF, will you do about it? What will be your choice?"

I will follow my orders as given to me through my chain of command.

 

[48Highlander]

cite?

Well, how about Haiti for one?  It's self evident really.  I don't see the need to go look up multiple examples, but, just to name a few of the top of my head:

Haiti, Rwana, Somalia, Yugoslavia

Any time a government loses control of it's country, it results in fighting between different groups within that country.

Take a step back here. It was YOUR assertion that Saddam's funding of Palestinian terrorist groups was a reason for the invasion of Iraq. I dispute this on the basis that if our purpose was to fight Palestinian terrorism in Israel, then invading Iraq is probably the worst way of doing it ever, not to mention that Palestinian terrorism poses no threat to the security of the US/Canada.
Shall we agree, then, that the "Palestinian" reason is no longer viable?

Are you kidding?  So if a drug dealer grows 1,000 lbs of marijuana and you only grow 5, those 5 lbs aren't a good enough reason for the cops to go after you?  There were MANY reasons for invading Iraq.  Saudi Arabia wasn't a viable target for many reasons, although they do fund terrorism.  As has been pointed out, it's better to use political channels at this stage to deal with them.  Iraq WAS a viable target and no political channels existed for dealing with them.  Are you starting to understand any of this?

 

[48Highlander]

As for Timotyh McVeigh, he was actually affiliate with several groups through the Elhom City compound, an anti-government sanctuary.  These groups included the Aryan Republican Army and the Christian Identity movements.  In fact, they all refferred to the same gospel, a book known as the "Turner Diaries" written by William Pierce.  I guess it isn't case closed.

    I'm DEFFINITELY not going that far off topic.  Suffice it to say I disagree.

America continues to train Latin American para-military forces at the Fort Benning, Georgia, School of the Americas to carry out repressive acts in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and to this day, Colombia.  If you look into the American involvement in Colombia you may see that the United States is currently engaged in sponsoring terrorist activity. 

    Really.  So you've been through the training at Fort Benning personaly then, and can gaurantee that they have a course called "Oppressing your people through terrorists tactics 101".

    I've seen the claims about the school and about american involvement in Latin America.  Once again, I'm not going that far off topic but I don't agree with you there either.  This conversation's getting out of control so if you're going to start jumping all over the board I'm gonna bow out.

 

[McG]

Take a step back here.

That's right, step back.  It was you that pointed at Saudi Arabia with the argument that they were the greater sinner (in one area of concern).

The fact that Iraq was giving money to terrorism showed a willingness to support terrorism against states that it had conflict with.

 

[Britney Spears]

Well, how about Haiti for one?  It's self evident really.  I don't see the need to go look up multiple examples, but, just to name a few of the top of my head:

Haiti, Rwana, Somalia, Yugoslavia

Any time a government loses control of it's country, it results in fighting between different groups within that country.

Your original words were "oppressive goverment", the implication being that whenever an unpopular native goverment has been overthrown by foreign intervention,  an armed insurrection against their supposed liberators is bound to begin. None of your examples fit this criterea.

Are you kidding?  So if a drug dealer grows 1,000 lbs of marijuana and you only grow 5, those 5 lbs aren't a good enough reason for the cops to go after you?  There were MANY reasons for invading Iraq.  Saudi Arabia wasn't a viable target for many reasons, although they do fund terrorism.  As has been pointed out, it's better to use political channels at this stage to deal with them.  Iraq WAS a viable target and no political channels existed for dealing with them.  Are you starting to understand any of this?

Hey, lets leave marijuana out of this OK?

You're still making 2 assertionss: 1) the invasion of Iraq had an apprieciable effect on the activities of Palestinian terrorist groups, or have made the US/Canada somehow safer from those same groups (to use your analogy, it will be like driving a tank through my house  and through the houses of my neighbours on either side, to get at my 5 lbs of marijuana), and 2) That we should be concerning ourselves with palestinian terror groups when Al-qaida had just killed thounsands of people.( Your analogy: Doing the aforementioned tank stunt, when there's a crazed serial sniper picking people off at gas stations down the road.) 

I disagree with both.

 

[Britney Spears]

The fact that Iraq was giving money to terrorism showed a willingness to support terrorism against states that it had conflict with.

And with this, you justify the invasion? Sorry, gentlemen, but the assetion that Iraq MAY be willing to support a group of religious fundamentalists who share none of their goals, and who  had previosuly been their worst enemies, while impossible to prove false, is simply not a good enough reason, and the rest of the world seems to agree (incidently, the rest of the world seems to think the idea is batshit insane, but I'll stay on topic). I'll concede that you are factually correct with this assertion, but I don't think that by invading Iraq we are coming out ahead.

 

[48Highlander]

You're still making 2 assertionss: 1) the invasion of Iraq had an apprieciable effect on the activities of Palestinian terrorist groups, or have made the US/Canada somehow safer from those same groups (to use your analogy, it will be like driving a tank through my house  and through the houses of my neighbours on either side, to get at my 5 lbs of marijuana), and 2) That we should be concerning ourselves with palestinian terror groups when Al-qaida had just killed thounsands of people.( Your analogy: Doing the aforementioned tank stunt, when there's a crazed serial sniper picking people off at gas stations down the road.) 

Argh.  Ok, this is the last time I'm going to try explaining this.  I know you said to leave the ganja out of this, but I'm going to use it as part of a theoretical scenario I'm constructing here.

Ok, so we have two hypothetical criminal.  Mr Green and Mr Blue.  Both are known to police, and we have the following facts on them:

Mr Green has in his possesion 1,000 lbs of marijuana.

Mr Blue has in his posession 5 lbs of marijuana.  He also has 100 kilos of cocaine, 10,000 tabs of extacy, 10 stolen vehicles, 5 pistols, 10 shotguns, a granade launcher, and thousands of round of ammunition.  He also pimps out 5 girls.  And 2 guys.  He is a suspect in 3 murders, 4 hit-and-runs, 10 sexual assaults, and 5 kidnappings.

So, the ETF storms Mr Blue's house and arrest him.

Now me and you decide to have a conversation about it.

Me:  Well, he was arrested because he had a whackload of weapons, lots of extacy and marijuana, and was a known criminal.

You:  Yeah, but Mr Green is also a known criminal and he has a lot more Marijuana, and the cops aren't doing anything about him.

Me:  Yeah, that's true, but they're still doing surveilance on Mr Green, so it wasn't a good idea to arrest him.  Mr Blue was a much better target.

You:  Well now you're dangling a red herring.  "because we're doing surveilance on Mr Green" isn't an excuse to arrest Mr Blue.

Me:  I didn't say it was a reason for arresting Mr Blue.  I said it was a reason NOT to arrest Mr Green.

You:  Take a step back here.  It was YOUR assertion that Mr Blue's possesion of Marijuana was the reason he was arrested.  If their reason for arresting Mr Blue was to limit marijuana distribution then it was probably the worst way of doing it ever.  Not to mention that he wasn't selling marijuana to the cops.  Shall we agree then that "marijuana" is no longer viable?

Me:  There were MANY reasons for arresting Mr Blue.  Arresting Mr Green wasn't a good idea, it's better to keep surveilance on him for now.  Arresting Mr Blue on the other hand IS a good idea.  You getting this?

You:  You're still making two assertions:  1) the arrest of Mr Blue had an appreciable effect on marijuana distribution.  2) That we should be concerning ourselves with marijuana when drunk driving kills WAY more people.



Now if you don't understand the point of my little scenario, well, I'm sorry, I tried.  I'll call it quits.  Otherwise, please accept the fact that there were multiple reasons for invading Iraq, and that the fact that another country was worse at one of those things doesn't immediately invalidate that as a reason.  If you're willing to acknowledge that then continue with whatever point you may have been trying to make, otherwise I wish you a good night.

 

[a_majoor]

Log off for a few hours and look what happens!

The root cause of Terrorism is the lust for power

I think a lot of the tangents about who did what to whom should be stamped out and all posters forced to contemplate this statement for a year or two. Personal power lust may end up helping us, as the Jihadis begin to fragment into competing groups under our assault: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200412170838.asp

In Cyprus, I would sometimes ask the locals why they had it in for the other side. "Why, they killed my great grandfather's uncles goat! I hate them forever!" In former Yugoslavia, the Serbian population would reffer to the battle of Kossovo Polje in terms that made it sound contemporaneous to "Operation Storm". Kossovo Polje was fought on June 28, 1389. As long as people are fed distorted versions of history and encouraged to nurse grudges like that, rational discourse is not an option. The ruling elites sponsor and encourage this as a means of maintaining their hold on power, and people who would like to be elites run the same rackets. As Ralph Peters puts it;" If we possessed the data to calculate an "information deposit coefficient" for the populations of cities such as the greater Boston area (winner) and Bombay (loser), we would probably be astonished at the per capita informational advantage in Boston. Compounding the problem, the information that is available in the world's loser cities is not only scarce, but generally inaccurate, episodic, and deformed by local prejudice."http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/97autumn/peters.htm (This gives me some disquieting evenings when I think of our own educational system).

The question as to what the jihadis are demanding is multi-faceted, since they are not a homogeneous "nation" or even organization. Osama Bin Laden wants to overthrow the House of Saud and establish a new Caliphate, ideally protected against Jews and Crusaders" by the threat of nuclear weapons and control over the supply of oil. (Saddam Hussein and the current Iranian regime shared the nuclear weapons and control of oil ambition). Down in the weeds, much of the action in the Tikrit triangle region is thought to be associated with Sunni Arab notions of shame and guilt, i.e. the fact that a foreign power had to come in and clean house is intensely shameful for for these people, and the fact that the Sunnis have been knocked from their elevated perch under Saddam makes it even more galling. See http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vincent200412160838.asp for a more detailed discussion. (This should also be posted on the 4GW thread, if I can ever find it...). 

Finally, the lead quote is not applicable to the United States. Terrorism is the "asymmetrical" response of a weak party attempting to intimidate the opposition. The British knew this well long before Northern Ireland; in Kenya and Malaysia, the "man with the knife" who lived in the villiage was the most feared opponent, since he would kill people who were seen or thought to be cooperative with the government or government forces. Since the "force to space" ratios were favorable, the British could send sections or even platoons of soldiers to live in threatened villiages, hunting for "the man with the knife" at close quarters until he was either caught by the soldiers, or more commonly, turned in by the now confident villiagers. While this is much more difficult in a densly populated urban environment, I have seen some internet "blogs" which seem to indicate similar things happened in Fallujia during the battle, locals turning out to indicate where Jihadi strongpoints were located. (This is a development to look into.). The United States deploys its power openly to support the national interest. American fire power is focused to the extent possible by current technology on the enemy, while collateral damage is regrettable, can anyone here seriously doubt the Americans have the ability to simply erase Fallujia and any other city or town from the face of the earth, ensure every living creature is killed and sow salt into the earth?

Finally, as has been pointed out, the Jihadis have carried out an attack on the US homeland, and several other mass attacks against the West (Madrid and Bali, the two biggest), while the "Shining path" and similar organizations have not. Even with the US economy growing at 5% compounded annually, there is simply not enough money or manpower to fight every enemy at once. (If and when a "friction free" system of economics is invented, things will change). To use an analogy, I will be better off dealing with the guy coming in through the window now, than dealing with the biker club-house across town. Anyway, there are probably more people interested in gaining a 5% compounded annual growth rate than can be murdered by any conceivable army of Jihadis, so time is ultimately on our side. This will be the work of a generation at least.