Sorry, I disagree..

Submitted by John Swedberg (Canada), Jan 7, 2004 at 14:19

Sorry, I disagree.. . The pre 9/11 scenario was under-involvement, as you suggest. But the post 9/11 scenario is over-involvement or overkill. The Beirut attack could have been avoided by observance of elementary security procedures, not just a guard shack between the road and embassy. Didn't they ever see the barriers at Check Point Charlie? The Cole attack could have been avoided by having lookouts on duty in port just as you do at sea. That bombers' boat should never have been permitted to approach so close. And even 9/11 could have been avoided if the reports from Minneapolis and Phoenix had been acted upon, the terrorists put under surveillance long before they got to Logan Airport.

If the protective procedures such as we are following today had been in place before, we would not now be involved in a "war on terror." The phrase contains the same jihadist overtone as "crusade" and is just as ugly. Any football or basketball coach knows that "the best offense is a good defense." That's as far as we needed to have gone.

The US is never going to be able to reshape an entire chunk of the globe. No one has been able to do it before, no one will ever be able to do it in the future. By going to war against billions of people, multiple countries, we are on the road to ruin.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".