Ridiculous. We have been at war there for 15 years and are worse off than the day we started. I’ve heard the roach motel theory of “fight them over there”.
Its BS. They aren’t coming here except the ones we import. And blowing up the whole middle east doesn’t make them less likely to attack us here. It makes it MORE likely.
It really is not exactly about here or there, as much as it is about attacking radicalism as it emerges, before it can develop, organize, and become more effective and efficient. History does show that if you allow radicalism the space to develop, it becomes much more painful to deal with. The distance between here and there, doesn’t matter as nearly as much as it did 40-50 years ago.
It really is not exactly about here or there, as much as it is about attacking radicalism as it emerges, before it can develop, organize, and become more effective and efficient. History does show that if you allow radicalism the space to develop, it becomes much more painful to deal with. The distance between here and there, doesn’t matter as nearly as much as it did 40-50 years ago.
Going to war overseas and refusing to shore up the US borders should have been our clue w was never really serious about it all.
> “Ridiculous. We have been at war there for 15 years and are worse off than the day we started. I’ve heard the roach motel theory of “fight them over there”. Its BS. They aren’t coming here except the ones we import. And blowing up the whole middle east doesn’t make them less likely to attack us here. It makes it MORE likely.”
I’m not entirely unsympathetic to your point of view. Isolationism is always tempting. I too sometimes think, “The hell with them! Let’s take care of ourselves!”
Even if we become impervious to empathy, though, our interests are necessarily intertwined with the interests of people in other parts of the world. Though internal corruption can weaken us, the most serious physical threats can only come from abroad.
By themselves, terrorists within the country are limited in how much damage they can do. True, the killing of thousands on 9-11 — though the plot originated overseas — could possibly have originated within the country too. That would be an extraordinary event, though, and a country such as the United States, with over 300 million inhabitants, can absorb the more routine attacks that kill 10, 20, or 50 — or even 3,000. There’s a possibility, though, that future attacks will kill hundreds of thousands or millions, make entire cities uninhabitable. In my opinion that’s the main threat that should concern us.
Islamist regimes in the Middle East have the power and money that make the acquisition of nuclear weapons (and very effective chemical and germ weapons) possible. Our domestic terrorists don’t have that kind of power and money. They can set off such weapons if acquired from elsewhere, though.
That’s why we can’t afford to ignore Islamist regimes elsewhere, which might be willing to pass the weapons on to them. With borders and coasts stretching thousands of miles, no wall can be effective enough to isolate us completely. As distasteful as it is, our own security interests compel us to remain involved in the Middle East.
Likewise a case could have been made for the United States not to have become involved in World War II (and it was involved in shipping arms to the Allies before Pearl Harbor). Without its involvement, though, it’s likely that Germany or Japan would have survived long enough to develop nuclear weapons (and without the stimulus of the war, the United States would not have developed them at that time). Even if the United States had remained a non-combatant, who doubts that it would have become susceptible afterward to nuclear blackmail from regimes like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?
The world is sometimes a nasty place to be in, and unfortunately there’s no good way to isolate ourselves from it.