Another Milestone Reached In Iraq

However we do it, whether it's by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or fighting somewhere else as we might wind up doing in Africa, we need to address the issue of these Muslim-fanatic terrorists.
These fanatics must be dealt with on some turf other than our own.
When they do the shit on our own turf, then it's gotten too late.
Recognize why you live with the freedoms that you do.
Recognize and acknowledge that it's not possible without sacrifices by other people.
Do I and most of the people I know wish the wars were over? Yes.
Trouble is, these wars or something similar to them seem to be necessary at the moment.

 

Iraq was never necessary. Afghanistan was. If you can't see the difference, you've not been paying one bit of attention the last five years.

 

"Addressing" the issue can be done in all kinds of ways that don't involve American soldiers invading and innocent citizens getting caught in the conflict.

1. Good intel.
2. Police work.
3. Cooperation between nations.
4. Border security.
5. Special Ops for special tasks.
6. Talking to your enemies (Syria, Iran, etc.) instead of just lumping them in with all the other bad guys.
7. Not helping evil people such as Osama bin Laden and Saddam attain power, which has come back to bite us in the butt 10,000-fold worse than had we just left matters alone a generation ago.

THAT is how you combat terrorism.

The military is fine for heavy lifting, eliminating known terrorist camps and things like that. Beyond that their long-term presence tends to do more harm than good.

But the seven things I listed above aren't sexy. And when someone suggests that in lieu of military action, they are accused by this administration (and its supporters) of "not caring" about stopping terrorism.

 

The first four you list always seem to involve some element of corruption.
I hate that, but it's true most always.
They are all four good strategies, but we never seem to get any of them in a pristine, genuine sense.

 

Hed, I can appreciate your sentiments, but the military as it is simply is not equipped to work long term as an occupying force, especially in an area where our occupation engenders more unrest and violence. Would there be unrest and violence without us there? Certainly, but it's ratcheted up by our presence.

And never let us forget, Afghanistan was supposed to be our focus, not Iraq.

As a veteran, I feel we should always consider military force as the final option. In Iraq, it was touted from day 1 as the only option, despite claims to the contrary of diplomatic efforts.

 

And the same could be said for military action, where the "fog" is often at its thickest.

Pat Tillman.
Abu-Grahib.
Haditha.
And so on.