[MannoFr]

Originally posted by Hierophant
i cant say i agree at all with the author's premise ... or rather the premise that was high-lighted. Before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no real 'front' on the war on terror. Afghanistan became one front, Iraq became another. Having physical fronts is a markedly better position to be in, when fighting typically asymetrical forces. You have no front, you try to occupy iraq that's not a front. The ennemy is around you, in friendly or innocent surroundings.



Originally posted by Hierophant
What would have "played into the enemy's hands" is if the US would have just called it a day after ousting the taliban. Or, removing saddam and then washing their hands of Iraq. wait and see. It's not a handwashing problem, it's that the iraqis hate to be occupied and they'll get teh US out ... probably only to kill one another (and the US might help the Kurds kill the others like in good ol' days of iran-iraq war).



Originally posted by Hierophant
I understand the argument that these battles have drawn ppl to the islamists cause, but i consider the alternative to be much worse. If the US would have backed off in the way that the anti-war crowd wanted, these terrorist groups would have simply waited, and planned for the next big attack. works for afghanistan, clearly not iraq.
And even in this case you can't call Afghanistan a win: most noticeably BL escaped, Omar escaped. Afghanistan is world's biggest producer of opium now. There is a good degree of success in cities though: kabul is getting through a wonderful development.