Scott L said:
X,
It's funny but I'm about to bring up Saddam Hussein to make a point. If you saw CNN's "In the Footsteps of bin Laden," he was fresh off his victory over the Russians in Afghanistan. Hussein invaded Kuwait and was flexing toward Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden, at ideological war with the Saudi princes, was angered when they turned to Bush the father for protection instead of his muhjahadeen. That the princes would actually invite an occupation!
Now of course it would be foolhardy to accept bin Laden's proclamations as fact, as he has shown a tendency to change them and tailor them to garner the support of his base, but "provoking a reaction" is not a main goal. It's more of a means to an end. Radical Islamic fury and stirring the pot over cartoons in Denmark, or miscontrued papal speeches, likewise a means to an end.
The stated goal is an end to foreign occupation. That is used as a recruitment tool. But it is their terroristic actions that provoke our reaction. The real aim is the establishment of Global Fundamental Islam. They will fight us until we are all dead or all dhimmis, regardless of our actions.
The part I've bolded tends to be the major justification for the entirety of the war on terror. I nod in agreement with every statement you make prior, but have to stop you here to make a couple of statements.
First, you can make a far stronger argument that the West is endeavouring to establish its version of the perfect society around the globe. (Indeed, the PNAC has even said as much.) So if we consider our natural reaction to violence by them toward an aim of expansionism, then how can we simultaneously not expect a similar reaction to our own expansionism?
Second, as much as that may be an aim of theirs, this in no way means they would be successful. I advocate a policy of 'retreat and defend' and by 'defend' I mean smack the living shit out of any nation or peoples who would attack us. What I don't mean by 'defend' is to actively engage these peoples in a prolonged head-to-head battle of societies, as we are doing.
I believe it would be near impossible for even a military to take over North America, and so I consider it laughable to presume that a group of peoples who must resort to using commercial aircraft as a weapon - and other unreliable, difficult-to-execute plans - in order to win just a single battle, have a hope in hell of taking us over. While those attacks certainly warrant a response (the initial attack on Afghanistan more or less had my support) they do not warrant the paranoid belief that they will be able to completely take us over if we don't engage in full-blown wars with them.
My view is that the attacks of 9/11 have been used to scare us into believing that our society as we know it is on the brink of takeover, when the reality is that our shores are very easy to defend, and our peoples very difficult to occupy. This is especially true in the US, given how armed the general population is.
If we think it's difficult to occupy Iraq, imagine how much more difficult it would be to occupy the United States?
Further, it's more likely than not that our war games are helping, not hurting, their cause, at least insofar as recruitment is concerned. Again, I see this as completely counterproductive.
On my especially cynical days I believe there is a faction of people in the White House (and elsewhere) who desire a long-drawn out war, for whatever reason. Follow the money for some. Follow the religion for others. Follow the power for still others.