Originally Posted by DaveN007
I don't see that as fearful. I see it as sensible.
I understand, however, that a pre-emptive strategy is bound to be hard for many to swallow over time. Few want to "wait to be hit again" before we do something, but even fewer are willing to maintain the offensive, apparently.
By the way, I never liked that phrase because we will never "fight them here". It should be "knock them back on their heels so they can't steady themselves long enough to mount an attack on our soil."
I don't think that it is an accident that no "9-11" has happened since. Yes it has cost us lives and treasure, but has the price been too high?
The problem with that philosophy is the general notion that NATIONS are responsible for the terrorism when, in more realistic terms, it is a fanatical offshoot of one of the three largest RELIGIONS in the World.
So your philosophy is to “Hit them ‘Over There’ and knock them on their heels!!” That might work on the group of terrorists that are living in Afghanistan or Iraq, although there is potential “Invasion” issues to deal with, that philosophy may not be as clear cut in France, Spain, Canada or England where we might just not be able “Hit them” at will.
This is why so many people have strongly opposed mass force as a solution to this problem. An Iron Willed Foreign Policy has a much better chance at building a WORLD Consensus to fight a Global Terrorism threat than our simplistic reactionary “they hit us and we are going to hit back” solution. We see how well it works.
Also, since this has always been considered a World problem, not just a US problem, your assessment that "I don't think that it is an accident that no "9-11" has happened since..." is incorrect. London and Madrid have both had major attacks. Also, the time between US attacks was 1993 and 2001. It is not rational to gauge success based on "our"timeline which is usually guided by our instant gratification lifestyle. Using historic Islamic terrorists’ attacks as a guide, we really should not expect another large attack for another few years. That caution was impressed on the Senate last year during one of their Intel briefings.