Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Libya, no freakin way. These guys didn't even settle for Lockerbie until this year.

Way. It didn't happen overnight, and it was a long time coming.

Arafat, a lot of Americans have been killed in Israel over the years. American victims of terrorism are down in Israel (I think) since 9/11.
Further, I could care less if renouncing Arafat makes anyone resent us more. There is no purpose in coddling those who tolerate terror, particularly in order to appease other non-democratic nations.

Maybe we're talking about different things when we talk about a war on terror. I don't care as much about terrorists who aren't focused on us. Hamas, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea -- if they don't see us as the enemy, we shouldn't spend too much time worrying about them. It's taking our eye of the ball. We need to focus on Al Qaeda and the Islamists, and that means not only killing them, but using diplomacy and the other metaphorical weapons in our arsenal to deprive them of support.

Unclear? Unclear that they [Syria] tolerate and provide umbrella coverage for Hizbollah in Lebanon?

No, but Hezbollah is not exactly our biggest enemy.

Syria: Simply not true. See above regarding Hizbollah. Saying they have nothing to do with Islamists is about as true as saying the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11/

Syria is a secular state which has gone after the Islamists within its own borders, hard. As I said, they were helping us before the invasion of Iraq. They support terrorists fighting Israel, which is not good, but also not the same as supporting Al Qaeda against us.

And yes, failed states are a problem for us. The trick is, I think the only people saying Afghanistan is a failed state (haven for terrorists) are occasional leftist mouthpieces. See the LA Times article today for contrary evidence.

I read it. It describes a mixed bag. Things are getting better in some ways, but then there's this:

• Afghanistan has a long way to go. The writ of the central government of interim President Hamid Karzai runs only so far. Opium growing — banned by the Taliban — has resurged, sending vast quantities of heroin to Europe by way of Iran and Central Asia and making an estimated profit of $2.3 billion last year for the country's warlords. The Taliban, in loose alliance with a militia loyal to warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has reestablished itself and is harassing the U.S. military and Western aid groups working in the south and east of the country.

If the central government doesn't have authority over the provinces, and the Taliban is still out there, we have a problem.

As for our allies, my best guess is that the same people who are with us in Iraq are the ones who provided immediate military support (special ops forces) in Afghanistan in 9/01 and 10/01. Namely, Australia and Britain. The question for me is not who will come in with the UN later. The question is who will go in the first place when justified, with or without the UN, the US NATO or any other outside support. The UN is simply irrelevant when it comes to this war.

Militarily, perhaps, although it would be nice to have (e.g.) Arab faces on the ground in Iraq, not because they shoot better, but politically. Also, intel is an important part of this war, and so we need cooperation from all over. There is a lot more to this than who has special ops forces. And don't forget Poland.

And I have no idea whether there is any basis to the suggestion that Gore or Kerry would have done the same thing post-9/11. THere is no indication in their political histories that either would show any military leadership.

Well, whatever. When you're in the Senate, that's the way it is. You could say the same of John McCain. And you could have said the same of George W. Bush four years ago.