You are not logged in.
From an op-ed column in NYTimes 15 Nov. <BR> <BR>If, as the right has it, our Army cannot be trusted to recognize a Hasan in its own ranks, then how will it figure out who the “good” Muslims will be as we try to build a “stable” state (whatever “stable” means) in a country that has never had a functioning central government? <BR> <BR>If our troops can’t be protected from seemingly friendly Muslim American brethren in Killeen, Tex., what are the odds of survival for the 40,000 more troops the hawks want to deploy to Kabul and sinkholes beyond?
Offline
The US entered Afghanistan in a hunt for the 9/11 terrorist bases. If the US, or others such as Canada, leave, will the West be as safe, safer, or not as safe. <BR> <BR>How can the safety of Western "targets" be best, and most economomically and humanely, protected? <BR> <BR>What if the money invested in warfare there were invested in the people more directly? There would be less loss of troops and much more goodwill, it seems. <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">What if the money invested in warfare there were invested in the people more directly? There would be less loss of troops and much more goodwill, it seems.</font></b> <BR> <BR>I certainly agree. <BR> <BR>Our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan have not only NOT made us safer, but has been a wonderful recruiting tool for more jihadists. <BR> <BR>That should be simple to understand: If your nation or mine were invaded by a foreign power and bombed it and then wished to dictate how it should be run, we would fight them: as we fought in the Revolution against George III. All nations want to be free of foreign domination. The Spaniards, Portugese, British and French all had to come to realization with their foreign colonies.
Offline