My friends,
The kind of hypocrisy I have seen when it comes to the GWOT is what was
said by the President himself at his WH news conference just a little while
ago during the lunch hour.
We have OBL in a place of sanctuary within Pakistan, the Paks even
offering a "truce", and W won't send US troops in there "because it's a
sovereign nation." Um, what was that again? So what was Afghanistan
back in 2001 and Iraq (supposedly connected to OBL/Al Qaeda) in 2003?
We had absolutely NO problem supposedly going after them in two
other "sovereign nations" and "going it alone" if we had to.
Now don't get me wrong --I do NOT think we should invade Pakistan. We've
bitten off too much as it is right now --in fact, we've taken food off the
wrong plate (Iraq) when it came to going after OBL/AlQ. Even the Russians
weren't so freaking stupid to do Afghanistan AND Chechnya at the same
time. Unfortunately, our American hubris has led us down that sorry stupid
path which the Rus were smart enough to avoid.
However, going by the administration's neo-con logic, we SHOULD be
invading Pakistan: harboring terrorists, elements within their own mil/intel
are "sympathetic" to the terrorists, AND (supposedly like Iran currently and
Iraq pre-2003
), they have NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Pakistan has
also repeatedly threatened it's neighbors (India).
We weren't worried about "offending" world opinion when it came to getting
OBL/AlQ in Afghanistan and Iraq, why should it matter now when we know
where he is and that country actually has working nukes?
"Politics" you say? Exactly. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with
stopping OBL, Al Q, and terrorism. Both sides of the political aisle like to
complain that Americans are losing their focus on safety, security, and
the potential impact of future terrorism, yet they are the very ones doing
"business as usual" in DC. This means little or no real support for the
"soldiers in the field" whether you're a National Guardsman deployed for
the second time to the wrong country (Iraq) or an FBI field agent who
has his security concerns memos ignored. Do you think we're going to
give a cr@p much longer when we see the big guys prolonging things on
the global stage while consolidating their power and giving their buddies
private contract $$$ to milk off of? These people have it in THEIR interest
to keep the fire going higher and as long as possible. They have absolutely
no incentive to fix the problem.
There's my rant. Here's how to fix the problem: assassinate the terrorist
leadership --both their supposed "independent" operators and their state
sponsors. That's right you kill them no matter what their public status is.
Can't get to them? BS. Everybody turns with enough blackmail and money.
Can't buy them off? Then freeze their assets and make it hard for their
state sponsors to do real business (not the bullcr@p so-called sanctions
against other state actors where they could still do business with French
banks and the ruling familes could continue on their European shopping
sprees!) LOL, no torture even required to pull that off and everyone can
quit yapping about violating GenCon#3. No one has a problem if you shoot a
bad guy. If he's in uniform use a FMJ, if not, use a SP/HP.
This is far more life and cost-effective than throwing WWII style brigades
into the desert where we kill car-loads of civies by accident and lose our
own AMERICAN soldiers while running up a tax bill that our grandkids can't
pay off.
So who might you ask is against this plan? Answer THAT questions and
you'll understand how the world is really run and who is calling the shots
--and why the real shots in the field are not taken.
Yep, there's my "thoughts on the War on Terrorism."
Someone doesn't like 'em? Tough. At least we still have a 1st Amendment
--for the time being.....