[lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete's Role Reversal

  • From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:06:11 -0500

Andy: Regarding my other question about would you go to Iraq if that was the condition on which that war would be waged, I can't blame, you, I wouldn't go either. And, guess what? We wouldn't be in this mess with no way out and be safer and stronger in the bargain.

Eric: Until Andy gets back, I'll repost part of last night's comments.

Andy: My definition of defensive [war] is [one that responds to] a clear attack, like Pearl Harbor. In that case most likely everyone would want to participate in some way anyhow. 9/11 was a terrorist attack by an organization, not a state.

Eric: Can a significant terrorist organization exist without state sponsorship? The original view on this was "no," and hence the invasion of Afghanistan sought to deprive the al-Qaeda varmints of their training centers and Taliban sponsorship.

As we have learned to our cost in Iraq, however, the answer to the question, "Can a terrorist organization exist without state sponsorship?" is "Sometimes it can."

But whether the US seeks to destroy state sponsorship of terrorism or (what should be the new task) discredit the ideologies and destroy the individual terror cells, it is a form of defensive war. And given the proliferation of WMD capacity worldwide, it's a vital defensive war.

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: