[Kilaoksrsa]

Osama would want the mosque to go up.

Would he? How do you know that? Were you his adviser at some point? Maybe you should just give him a call and ask him what he wants.
But since its not Osama putting it up, and the guy responsible is not a fugitive, there is no legal basis to block it.

It might be ill advised, insensitive, insulting ect ect, but none of those things are illegal.

We just need to make sure there are plenty of undercover FBI agents in there. Osama is a bad guy. Osama wants to wear clothes. Therefore, it's a real tragedy that we can't ban Americans from wearing clothes since it's something Osama would want to do. Damn those legal technicalities!

Clearly, we need to get the FBI to infiltrate these clothes-wearing organizations to ensure there aren't any terrorists-in-training there.

[ftpsoft]

Worrying about what the enemy does or does not want you to do gets you nowhere. You're supposed to know your enemy, but your actions aren't supposed to be dictated by him, which is what happens when you start worrying about what would make him happy and what would upset him. Doing stupid things just because they would upset Osama isn't a strategy, nor is failing to do smart things just because Osama thinks it would be in his best interest.

Besides, we're not talking about some kind of military genius here. He ain't Napoleon. He has no idea what is good for his cause or isn't.

[logpogingg]

After 9/11 the world was largely united behind us. Even many Moslum and Arab nations supported our invasion of Afghanistan to topple the fanatical Taliban government that had allowed al Qaeda to organize within its borders.

Ideally, we would have routed the Taliban and created the space for some other government to take its place. Then gotten out.
That was the rational thing to do.

Instead, the US went off on a bizarre crusade in Iraq while putting the Afghan war on hold. Invading Iraq for reasons that turned out to be entirely bogus turned all that international goodwill into antipathy against all things American. It also allowed bin Laden to escape and for the Taliban to reorganize.

American foreign policy following 9/11 could hardly have been more disasterous to American interests.

In 2009 Obama came into office trying to turn this disaster around. After much internal debate (documented in detail in Jonathan Alter's The Promise) Obama decided to try a last-ditch effort to establish a viable security situation in Afghanistan that would be able to withstand the Taliban after we pulled out. The US military agreed that the summer of 2011 would be a realistic deadline to get this done.

[viagsjicguara]

No matter what happens, Osama Bin Hidin will claim it is a sigh of Allah's blessings on the Mujahideen. Matt

No doubt. But on the one hand his grievances will be grounded in fact, while in the other, not. Why make it easy for him?

This all gets at the notion of soft power, wherein a nation's ability to get others to do their bidding relies on something other than physical force.
After the ignorant and arrogant policies of the Bush administration, our soft power in the world was almost non-existent. Obama is trying to recharge it, and he's been somewhat successful.

We can play into bin Laden's talking points, or we can demonstrate that we are in fact a nation of laws, a nation that honors religious freedom and civil rights, and a nation that respects other nations insofar as they act within international norms. If we choose the latter, it erodes bin Laden's standing in the eyes of those who are open-minded enough to evaluate these things rationally.

I recognize that religion is a highly effective mechanism for erroding one's ability to rationally evaluate facts. I see that in America every day. But many people, even religious people, including Moslums, retain their ability to think. Those are the folks that nations try to reach with "soft power."

[FrassyLap]

You seem to be portraying Obama as the victim here. Actually Obama has stated repeatedly, unequivocally, that Afghanistan was the "right war". On the campaign trail he waved the banner and cited that we can't afford to lose there. Didn't hear a lot of debate or hand wringing from him. So does that make him Osama bin Ladin's lackey....??? .

Presidents are not elected on the bases of veracity but by the number of "favorable" remarks made to each divergent group that when turned into votes equal a majority.

Money and word crafters control your mind and vote.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are disasters we will describe as victories after our required pain pill.

There will always be a compelling need to make preemptive war until there is only the last man standing and hopefully it's us.

[Wvq9InTM]

If we choose the latter, it erodes bin Laden's standing in the eyes of those who are open-minded enough to evaluate these things rationally.


Unfortunately, that mainly means people in the West. hard for people to be rational when they aren't taught to be and their societies are too closed to get any grasp of facts anyway.

[mplawssix]

There were plenty of ways to get Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan without invading...

Would you mind listing some of these "plenty of ways".....??


.

[stutnerman]

If we choose the latter, it erodes bin Laden's standing in the eyes of those who are open-minded enough to evaluate these things rationally.


Unfortunately, that mainly means people in the West. hard for people to be rational when they aren't taught to be and their societies are too closed to get any grasp of facts anyway.

I believe the notion that the West is more rational than elsewhere is just cultural bias. Just look at the antics of the Republican Party in America, busily denying the reality of global warming because global warming is inconvenient to their ideology. Or look at the fanatical Christian fundamentalists, trying to rewrite our science books.
Most Muslims are not fundamentalists, and only a tiny minority are terrorists.

For my money, ALL religion is an impediment to rational analysis.

[RooxiaNof]

I believe the notion that the West is more rational than elsewhere is just cultural bias

No, it's a function of the openness of our societies. When you get your news almost entirely from a state-run press, or you get stones thrown at you for stating disagreement with the poiltical orthodoxy, then you're going to see less rationality in a society.

The existence of minor irrationality in the West(and yes, it's minor compared to the wild conspiracy theories widely believed in the Islamic world) does not debunk the argument.

[gettoblaster]

Would you mind listing some of these "plenty of ways".....??


.

The 9/11 criminals are perps. They are not an Army, they do not represent a huge population, they control no territory. They are criminals, plain and simple. They might even meet the definition of a cult, but whatever they are, they are not "the enemy" anymore than was Al Capone.

One goes after perps with police methods, one goes after cults by marginalizing them. The process is fairly straight forward and understood by every national police force on the planet.

Instead, we sent the army after them; we effectively recruited hundreds, if not thousands, of new members for Al Q. We didn't catch anyone of signicance, and AL Q is probably as strong now as it was on 9/11. They are far from being marginalized, but in addition we have pissed off millions in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in Pakistan.

It is a disaster by whatever measure you choose to use.

[drislerfottor]

Al Qaeda is closer to being criminals than an army, but police work doesn't beat them. Al Qaeda had 5000 men, and they were an arm of the Taliban government, not some rogue force. The Taliban government had to be taken down and Al Qaeda's 5000-man militia taken apart. That takes a military.