Now that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are out, two and a half terrorist states remain: Iran, Syria and Lebanon, the latter being a Syrian colony. Perhaps Sudan should be added to the list.
First, he's leaving out a critical player, Pakistan. If the fundies take over there, they already have the nukes. Leaving Pakistan with its huge and largely radicalized population out of the discussion is, a mistake. Whether Musharraf is a friend or not, it is perilous to leave them off the list when contemplating the strategic resources necessary to win.
Second, the US still has to contend with China AND Chinese sponsored fronts around the world. As he already offered, some forms of Islamic terror have communist affiliation. America must deal with terrorism with the realization that its use to weaken us before a fatal blow may in fact be an early feint in a much more dangerous conflict. In my judgment, his focus exclusively upon Islamic terror, is an Israeli-centric perspective that may be critically short-sighted.
In order to win the war it is also necessary to dry the financial resources of the terror conglomerate. It is pointless to try to understand the subtle differences between the Sunni terror of Al Qaida and Hamas and the Shiite terror of Hezbollah, Sadr and other Iranian inspired enterprises. When it serves their business needs, all of them collaborate beautifully.
Finally, he never discusses HOW to cut off the money. by developing alternative energy resources. Just as Reagan critically wounded the Soviet Union by decontrolling oil prices in the US to increase domestic exploration, so we must develop all our resources, coal, nuclear, biomass, and petrochemical, to eliminate the source of funding of Arab terror as well as to strengthen the economy that funds our defense in the long run. The key there is our own regulatory straitjacket, particularly environmental law.
ONLY after we bring the Islamic world to its economic knees will the funding for the madrassas dry up.
China is at a cross roads. On the one hand, they want Taiwan and international respect. On the other hand, they want prosperity and advancement.
In their remote province of Xinjiang, they are at war with an Islamic rebellion. On their frontier, they occupy a part of India's Kashmir, share a border with a nutcase in North Korea, nuclear super-power Russia, and have been stood down by a few million Taiwanese.
If they go to war against Taiwan, Russia, or India, they face international isolation, trade sanctions, and perhaps even open war with the West, as well as lose their biggest trading customer, the U.S...and they'd still be faced in Xingjiang with precisely what Russia is up against in Chechnya.
What they want, of course, is to use nutcases like North Korea and Osama Bin Laden to distract and "pacify" the U.S. in regards to Taiwan so that Taiwan falls without a shot being fired.
But such a bluff can only be carried so far. Even if China completely sides with Osama, the rebellion in Xinjiang will continue. That's quite a price to pay for losing your biggest trading partner.
So China is at a cross-roads. Will China choose Osama (or to continue their bluff), or will they ally with the U.S. against the same sorts of people who are waging war against America, Israel, and Russia?
Note carefully that China is trying to forge friendships with both Israel and Russia. This is a hint of where they may very well go in the future.
Why wage war with a nuclear armed, billion-plus population of India? Why piss away their largest trading partner in the U.S.? What is to gain for China by carrying their current pro-Osama bluff too far?
"Now that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are out, two and a half terrorist states remain: Iran, Syria and Lebanon, the latter being a Syrian colony. Perhaps Sudan should be added to the list.
First, he's leaving out a critical player, Pakistan. "
Let's not forget. Saudi Arabia. After that comes Canada, any European nation, Indonesia, Michigan or anywhere else that Radical Islam is hosted.