I'm not so sure that would be such a good idea. It's not like the Israelis are winning. They're still knee deep in suicide bombers.
You can't beat terror with guns. I'm not being a hippie here. It's the nature of it. There's nothing or nobody to attack. The Islamic militants are fighting with weapons that can be bought or built cheaply.
It's not like religion is going to go away in a hurry. People being motivated by imaginary future rewards has shown to be quite hard to combat. The people who fund these fighters are just ordinary people, (ordinary in the inconspicuous sense).
So basically taking away the means, money or manpower is a futile project. Which is pretty much what wars are all about.
I'm not going to pretend like I have a clue on how to solve the problems in Israel, but settling it with fighting doesn't seem to work. Maybe another tactic might be more useful, (Like making Israel/Palestein a secular state might perhaps be a start? hint hint)
When it comes to Saddam, I couldn't and still can't see any other strategy than an all out invasion that would have worked. But these two issues are completly unrelated. There's absolutely no link between them. I aplaud Bush and USA for carrying it through. I might have opinions on method, but it's always easier to bitch and whine from the back row than being the guy up-front actually getting his hands dirty.






Reply With Quote