Actually you’re right in that these sorts of problems are issues that span decades, if not generations. You’re also right that as in the Cold War you have a domino effect as well as key nations or fortifications as you called them (i.e. Germany, Thailand...etc). However, where you’re wrong is in the assumption that we or the entire West has an option, we don’t. You’re also incorrect in assuming Iraq is the entire focus of our attention or that this war is purely being fought with the war fighter, it isn’t. This will go on for many years, it’s transnational but there are key nations involved, and it will be fought on many planes not considered battle-space by the layperson (i.e. IO/Media, economic, etc).
It is the belief that these events in time and space can be separated and like Grenada, Cuba, Vietnam, Thailand, Angola, Afghanistan, Korea, the Berlin Airlift, our spy wars in Germany or even the Greek civil war are all separate, they’re not. There was a common thread that ran through all these events, you had the Soviets and the US/West battle it out in some fashion in what is mistakenly called the “Cold War” (an oxymoron). These were proxy wars.
Like the anti-war protesters in the late 60s and 70s, people don’t ask themselves where those MIG21s, SA2 and 3, RPG7s, radars etc come from. They don’t think about what happened in Laos or Cambodia when we left, or even who it was that tried to pour into Thailand, which thank God held up, or the entire region would have collapsed. The average American does not even take note of Soviet bases popping up in Vietnam nearly months after we left, with their largest Naval base outside the Soviet Union being in Cam Ranh ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1964253.stm ). To the American anti-war protester, there were no connections, and many of those even after the fact don’t see it. Ironically, the anti-war pundit today attempts to champion Vietnam as his battle cry, and the only similarities between Iraq and Vietnam are those fools in the media, our politicians that pander, and the self proclaimed intellectuals who think they are profound by being against the war and separating out Iraq or Vietnam from the larger picture.
We have limited resources. We can only do so much at once and it’s not us that the finger should be pointed at. We have post WWII always carried a disproportionate weight compared to nearly all other allied nations. There are many today in the West who essentially are “hiding out,” trying to do as little as possible, avoiding the price economic, political, and in security/blood by taking no action. It is those who suck on the teat of modern Western society and globalization but do nothing for it that should be ridiculed (i.e. Hungary, Germany, Norway…..). From free open water ways they do nothing for and those ships carrying BMWs travel on, to secure open air ways, access to strategic resources needed for a technology and industry based society (Cesium, Uranium, Gold, Platinum, oil…..), regional stability, safeguarding of intellectual property……. some in the West simply want to take advantage of it all but do nothing for it! We are once again in a leading role in the West; paying more, bleeding more, and of course being called names by the open minded who take their freedom and way of life as a simple birth right. We as a nation are doing our part, we always have.
“I don’t care. I don’t want to spend the money or blood.”
What is the alternative?
There were those years past who said, “I’d rather be red than dead.” Here’s a good quote for you, “rather live on your knees than die on your feet.” Those were people in the 60s making such statements in face of another threat.
It has given me a nice morning chuckle.
The Soviets were nothing as a threat compared to islam.
Second, just because I don't want to waste resources in Iraq doesn't mean, at all, that I'm suggesting we give up. Read my other posts.
Wars are won by will and money. Both are finite resources. We are stuck in Iraq - we cannot pull out now. But it is a total waste of treasure.
The West isn't going to start killing millions of muslims so that is out as a realistic option. The only way out of this that I can see, and I may be biased because of my background, is to:
1. Covertly attack the religion itself. Reagen was superb at this. Get them to fight each other and drain their resources. Discredit the religion, especially in the 3rd world.
2. Get away from oil dependency. The accumulated treasure of the West is flowing into the ME. We are funding our own destruction.
3. When it can be “publicly” justified, blow the hell out of an islamic nation every once in a while. Just don't hang around with the naive idea that you are going to engage in nation building.