Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
The conventional hawk wisdom is that it's exactly what bin Laden wanted - US war against arabs - and it will come out exactly like he didn't want.
A blatant one-sided US rout of one of the Arab world's strongest armies should clarify once and for all exactly how advanced the US is, and that the US does not *ever* lack the resolve to use force when threatened, etc. etc.
|
Conventional hawk wisdom is pretty much wrong, then. Except maybe about bin Laden's desires.
We've already had a blatant one-sided US route of one of the Arab world's strongest armies, back during the Gulf War. That one supposedly scared even the Soviets.
The idea that the US lacks resolve to use force when threatened is a long lasting myth, but as far as I know it has NEVER been born out. You'd think people would learn by now.
These factors is why terrorism is so attractive to more intelligent US enemies, of course -- if you're a known actor in a known place, the US can crush you. If the US doesn't know who you are or where you are, if you can strike from the shadows and shrink back into them, you have a better chance of surviving.
IMO, the Iraq situation has nothing to do with anti-US terrorism. That's just a plausible excuse.