Regardless my hope is that we place Al Qaeda into context and by all means make sure we differentiate between the homicidal and suicidal Al Qaeda adherents and the much larger groups (i.e. Taliban, Hamas) who may not share our beliefs but will behave rationally in pursuit of their own agendas. Containing the Taliban is a much more feasible and less risky strategy than merely containing Al Qaeda. Ultimately the two strategies may go hand in hand, if we contain as opposed to try to destroy the Taliban they may be far more willing to purge Al Qaeda.
From Economist:
"...Today on his blog, Tom Ricks highlights some insight from Colin Gray on the war on terrorism.
Too many people have become unduly fixated on the challenge posed by terrorism. ...Terrorism does not threaten our civilization, but our over-reaction to it
could do so. ...Compared to interstate conflict, terrorism—even terrorism armed
with weapons of mass destruction—is a minor menace.
...Al Qaeda is showing signs of being a self-defeating adversary, beset by internal pathologies and increasingly unpopular in the very societies it seeks to mobilize against the West. In his view, a patient, containment-like approach that encourages these divisions and avoids self-inflicted wounds provides a better blueprint for the counter-terrorism effort than the ill-conceived excesses adopted by the Bush administration."
...the dangers of an American war in Pakistan, which makes me think that the country does not fall into America's protective sphere in his mind. Yet allowing terrorists to take over large swaths of the country would do anything but place a ceiling on the threat. And, unlike in the cold war, terrorists have no cause to show restraint. All of which leads me to believe that a realistic containment strategy may end up being more aggressive than Mr Porter thinks."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/03/containing_the_terrorists.cfm
No comments:
Post a Comment