gbaji wrote:
Let me explain (again!). The presense of US troops in Saudi Arabia is the prime cause of OBL directing attacks at US targets around the globe, and ultimately resulted in the 9/11 attacks occuring. US troops were present in Saudi Arabia as part of the UN operations against Iraq (and protection of SA from Iraq).
What part of that is unclear to you?
It's crystal-clear, but incredibly simplistic and, therefore, ultimately wrong.
No one is denying that US troops in SA were part of the AQ reasoning. But you're adamant that it was the main reason, whereas everyone else understands that the problem is broader and more complex than that.
And then, you have the small issue of using that excuse to justify the invasion of Iraq. Surely, you're the only one left on this planet that believes that taking troops out of SA, and using them to invade and occupy Iraq, somehow reduces the threat we're facing.
gbaji wrote:
US troops in SA "caused" 9/11 to happpen.
No, it didn't. It "contributed" to it happening. It provided more propaganda ammunition to recruit terrorists.
It's clear that you're clinging on to this reasoning because it provides a link between 9/11 and Iraq. But you're clutching at straws.
Troops in SA will be replaced by the invsion of Iraq in the AQ propaganda book. Or Guantanamo. Or Abu-Ghraib. Or Thetchnia. Or Kashmir. Or Israel/Palestine. Or the funding of Egypt/SA/Pakistan's government.
The situation is similar to most terrorists movements that have existed before. You have grieviances from a sector of the population, legitimate, or not. Those grieviances get high-jacked by people that gain something from it, whether financial, or existential. They turn it into a proper industry, in order to get as much support from the local, non-militant, population. And then they commit terrorists acts in the names of those grieviances.
There's nothing we can do about the most hardcore fanatics. Even if we solved every single one fo their gripes, they would still call for Jihad, because it has become their
raison d'etre. their income, their status, their existence, depends on that conflict. The only thing you can do about these guys, is lock them up, cut their funding, or kill them.
And then you have the local population. The one without which the terrorists would not be so effective. The "ordinary" Muslims, in this case, which get brainwashed by an effective mix of religious and political propaganda. These guys, you can do something about. Not with guns, not with threats, not by re-inforcing their sense of victimhood and persecution.
But with soft power. Through education, for example. You know that most of the Madrassas in Pakistan, the Islamic schools where 4 year-old kids are taught to learn the Koran by heart and nothing else, are funded by the SA government? That their branch of Islam, wahabism, is the most aggressive and war-mongering kind of Islam on the planet? And that they are brainwashing a whole new generation of dirt-poor kids with nothing to lose?
And we are doing nothing about it. We're not putting pressure on SA to stop. We're not secretly funding Madrassas that would teach a much more open and peaceful version of Islam. Surely, that would a be start...
Not only that, but Islam is an incredibly divided religion, with dozens of branches and sects. If you're a realist, you could argue we should playing those branches against each other. Iran and the Talibans, for exemple, are sworn ennemies. And somehow we manage to unite them both against us.
Winning with guns will be almost impossible. For every innocent Muslim we kill, and it's bound to happen, we're giving ammunition and potential recruits to AQ.
The key is soft power: shared intelligence, education, covert operations, and most of all, a propaganda war. Our best allies, our most important allies, in this fight are moderate Muslims. We'll never "win" without having them on our side.
And then there are regional problems. It's obvious the US and the EU have a different kind of problem when it comes to AQ, and will therefore require different solutions. For simple reasons, like the fact that the EU has a huge Muslim population, which comes from countries actively involved in **** (Pakistan in the UK, Algeria in France, etc...).
And then you have the problems inherent to the Arab world. Should we really be supporting Mubarrak? The SA monarchy? What about countries like Yemen, or Somalia, which have no governemnt to speak of and are therefore a safe haven for terrorists?
It's a complicated and broad topic. Reducing it to the US troops in SA is dumbing down the problem to a level where we'll be completely ineffective.