It is my opinion that there need to be two branches in the Allied response to
the current situation.
1) Limiting the operational ability of covert agents acting on behalf of
Islamic Extremist groups to engage in asymetric warfare. This is a
combination of traditional anti-terrorist enforcement and anti-insurgent
warfare.
But contrary to the US propaganda these operatives are neither ignorant
nor cowardly. There is simply no kill-ratio that will be unacceptable to
them. Their goal is to limit the power of evil and maximize the realm of
Islam. By their definition the realm of Islam is very small. It consists of:
2) A coventional military option to deny a) support and b)
political-military success to the Extremists.
These are often regarded as truely Islamic states or polities by more Extreme
Islamists.
-- Afghanistan
-- Sudan
-- Libya (some would exclude Libya because Ghadaffi isn't orthodox enough.)
-- The FIS in Algeria
-- The Palestinian authority.
It is really far to secular, but will be treated *as if* it had valid
creditials until it gains statehood. Then the goal will be to set up a
satisfactory Islamic republic.
Toppling any of these governments would make the bombing a loosing
proposition for the Islamic Extremists in game terms.
The Taliban and Bin Laden would exclude
-- Iran. This is because the Iranian government is Shi'a. In fact, the
Taliban persecute the Afghani Shi'a minority. Also, its revolution is
mellowing and ageing.
-- Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. These governments are religiously
strict, but the rulers don't show enough personal piety and are too
expedient. In particular they go-along to get-along with non-Muslim states.
-- In alternate weeks the government leans toward Islamicism but it is never
really good enough. Every other week a Bhutto is in power--they are agents
of satan.
More liberal or pro-western governments would be unfortunate.
The following aren't even close:
Syria (papa Assad once massacred thousands of Muslim Bretheren)
Jordan
Egypt
Lebanon
Morocco
Iraq. However, Iraq merits respect because it keeps insulting the West..
Any successor to Saddam would be more pro-Western, and that would constitute
a loss--though it might be an even trade.
=======================
Turkey and Tunisia, and especially the government of Algeria, are hated even
more than the West as Western wanabes.
Despite having over half the worlds Muslim population Bangledesh, Malaysia,
and Indonesia seem to barely register in the minds of Middle Eastern Muslims.
=======================
If Iraq even touched the WTC attack with the tip of its intelligence pinky,
we should use the excuse to invade. That war would be conventional and
winable.
As for war in Afghanistan, that is a really nasty proposition. It is a vast
territory of nothing, so there is no real ally to be had by toppling the
current enemy. On the downside, the Taliban are proven fighters and Afghans
are tough as they come.
Al-Qaeda may be counting on humiliating another superpower in
Afghanistan. Without access through Iran and/or Pakistan this may be
trivally easy to do (assuming that the populace supports them on the general
priciple of opposing foreign occupation by infidels.)
Access through the Turkish Republics is doable but entails a hideously
long supply line. In general, Pakistan is the prefered route to Afghanistan,
with Iran a distant second.
