Come and get us

The funny part is, they still (though Osama told them directly) haven't figured out that the strategy is NOT a frontal attack, or even another stealth bombing.

It is the same strategy used during the Russian war in Afghanistan, that we taught them.

You lure the military here, and there, and everywhere seeking out phantom threats and hit and run attacks. Not only to stretch it so thin you can poke holes in it, but also simply to... financially bleed them dry.

They won that war in Afghanistan, not because they bombed Russia, or overwhelmed the military forces, but because they practically bankrupted the Soviet Union with their attempt to 'win'.

Money isn't a problem. Bin Laden has huge amounts of personal wealth. But likely? No, not Iran or Pakistan. You want a source of incredible income? You're going to have to look toward where most of them COME FROM. Saudi Arabia.

But.. We certainly did NOT give them more money than the Soviet Union had access to. They didn't NEED a ton of money for this strategy.

It is always cheaper to hit and run, they use volunteers, that they don't need to arm all that well.

A single person with an IED scattered here and there is a lot cheaper than moving thousands of troops, having to deal with supply lines, infrastructure, bases..

Even if we cut off all funding, they could still use this strategy effectively.

After all, we managed it quite well during the American Revolution.

Fr Basil,

I agree. They best way to prepare ourselves for an attack on US soil is by having our first responders trained and prepared to deal with a variety of scenarios.
Any forseeable attack on the United States is not going to be something an armored division can be dispatched to rout.

Rod,

I don't understand that fear people associate with having a long term troop prescence in Iraq. At some point in the near future, our troop prescence will be pretty much indistinguishable from our current posture in Kosovo, Korea, Japan or Germany. I'm unconcerned about having a few 10s of thousands of troops in Iraq if they are operating as a stabilization force and aren't taking casualties.

I don't understand that fear people associate with having a long term troop prescence in Iraq. At some point in the near future, our troop prescence will be pretty much indistinguishable from our current posture in Kosovo, Korea, Japan or Germany. I'm unconcerned about having a few 10s of thousands of troops in Iraq if they are operating as a stabilization force and aren't taking casualties.

Well, this assumes that at some point in the not-too-distant future, our troops in Iraq will no longer be suffering combat-related casualties. Pretty big assumption. And I say that as someone who doesn't quite agree with Rod's take on the Iraq War.

That aside, maintaining an American garrison in Iraq (or anywhere else in the Mideast) means continued American concern for the territorial disputes of southwestern Eurasia. (Why else would you keep the troops there?) If you're someone - like me - who doesn't think such disputes are any of America's business, then long-term stationing of troops even in a peaceful Iraq becomes a matter of concern.

And yes, I would withdraw our troops from Europe. Should've done that when USSR fell apart. East Asia I'm not so sure about, but that's a whole 'nother post.

MI,

I don't care so much for the territorial disputes of the Middle East. That's why I'm glad that we've tried to stay out of the way of the Kurdistan issue. I am concerned with ensuring that the nations in that area don't provide safe havens for terrorists or WMD programs and that oil produced in the region can be safely brought to market.

dave,

When you are the preeminent power on the globe foreign defense is often good national defense. Obviously we need to be careful and wise where and how we intervene. But I would hold that our intervention and prescence in Korea, as an example, has been good for Korea as well as the United States.

I am concerned with ensuring that the nations in that area don't provide safe havens for terrorists or WMD programs

That being said, I'm not convinced that the only way of denying sanctuary to terrorists is permanent American occupation of a given area, or American sponsorship of a friendly client/satellite regime in said area.

Consider this alternative: Terrorists attack America. America locates the regime(s) that sheltered said terrorists, invades, and captures & executes the leader(s) who provided aid & comfort to our enemies. Then we leave, with the warning that similar misbehavior in the future will prompt repeated intervention.

We might also want to consider beefing up border security (our southern border & ports come to mind).

WMD are only an issue if they're deliverable to American soil. Again, border security (and perhaps missile defense).

and that oil produced in the region can be safely brought to market.

This only matters so long as we're dependent on imported oil. Between energy conservation on the one hand, and nuclear/wind/solar/tar sands/oil shale on the other, continued American dependence on imported energy sources hardly seems inevitable.

When you are the preeminent power on the globe foreign defense is often good national defense.

Insofar as "foreign defense" means interventions aimed at preventing a hostile power from gaining hegemony over Eurasia (or the Eastern Hemisphere), this is correct. Looking at the state of Eurasia today, however, it seems unlikely that such hegemony will be within reach of any power for the foreseeable future, even without American interventions.

We have never really thought about defending ourselves from attack. The best defense that we have, and had during the Cold War, was the ability to strike back.

Mecca is a sitting target for nuclear weapons and, all protestations to the contrary aside, is likely already targeted for destruction if such an attack were to occur. And if it is not, god help any sitting President who did not destroy it in retaliation.

You cannot secure everything, you cannot stop everyone. What you can do, the only thing that you can do, is make the price so high that even the most fanatical will not dare do it.

Congress fiddles while LA burns! What else is new?
While energy independence is a great idea it remains just that, an idea.
A political body, mentally challenged, bunch of idiots in congress will not even allow drilling on 2000 measly bug ridden tundra acres to help ourselves. Until other energy sources are developed that will carry the load, like it or not, oil is necessary.
The same mentally challenged folk don't like dams, Can't stand nuclear, hate coal, aren't too fond of windmills cluttering up the desert, hate mining so of course one will not have material to make solar panels with. Energy saving light bulbs are bad stuff too ya know.
Alaska has more oil reserves than one could believe and can produce it in a safe manner but NO. Some perceived notion that it could harm a lemming or some other as yet unknown excuse will not allow rational thought. One must wonder what the real agenda coming from the left really is!