> Well we've launched into one of my favorite topics - and I am guilty of > baiting. > > I believe Al Qaeda per se is toothless and almost meaningless as of today. > The > name Al Qaeda appeals to US and Western audiences, and Dubya needs AlQ.
Shiv, Interesting thoughts. A couple of questions: 1. Do you really think the US response to 9/11 (largely the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, plus some silly security measures in the US, and a few effective things like cutting off terrorist funding networks) have made the US safer? In other words, if Iraq and Afghanistan had not been invaded, do you think there would have been another attack on the US mainland? Why? (Keeping in mind the view that the botched invasions have created millions of potential new Al Qaeda recruits and fanned anger against the US. When I say Al Qaeda - let's say, Islamist terrorist groups in general - not necessarily the AQ organization). In particular, do you think the strategic decision to stop focussing on Afghanistan after defeating the Taliban and cornering OBL in Tora Bora (or wherever) and shift focus to Iraq, has made the US safer? 2. I've often felt myself that Indian foreign policy ought to be a lot more muscular, and that we run the risk of being considered, in effect, "nice but ineffective". But as a practical matter, what kind of measures would you recommend for India to "crack down" on terrorism? Increased domestic security efforts of some sort (with all their civil liberties implications)? More aggressive tactics against cross-border terrorism and terrorist training camps in Azad Kashmir? (Keeping in mind the risk of sparking nuclear war - something the US didn't have to worry about in Iraq or Afghanistan) Badri PS - I also read BR pretty frequently (but don't post because my online discussion bandwidth is pretty full) and it is fascinating to see how the discussions there are virtually mirror images of similar ones on silk (although there is no one to stir things up like you do here..perhaps I should start posting after all..)
