Terrorists don't need states.

[damnraddem]

Forthcoming in Newsweek: http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/040504.html. It is classed as an 'article.'

Excerpt: 'Stepping away from the partisan screaming going on these days, the 9/11 commission hearings and—far more revealing—the panel's staff reports paint a fascinating picture of the rise of a new phenomenon in global politics: terrorism that is not state-sponsored but society-sponsored. Few in the American government fully grasped that a group of people without a state's support could pose a mortal threat. The mistake looks obvious in hindsight, but was, sadly, understandable at the time of 9/11. What is less understandable is that this same error persists even today.'

[rucky]

1. So attacking countries is useless.

And the Clinton method was more effective. Plus, it underlies the absolute need for cooperation with other nations - that includes the UN.

Also, we need to start questioning Afghanistan like we did Iraq.

[damnraddem]

4. The Taliban deserved to be overthrown for the desecration of the ...

statues alone.

The issue is that the Bushistas equated a military victory over Taliban and Al Qaida forces with victory. They thus set the stage for a possible return to power by the Taliban -- or for that matter, by forces that would prove about as bad. As it is, Afghanistan at best remains a 'country' largely run by regional warlords.

[efhmc]

2. Hadn't really thought of the entity aspect of this just thought of

terrorist of a group of lie-minded thugs hoping to get their hands on any country that they can control, which was obviously not the case in Iraqi.

[LoZoccolo]

3. EXACTLY.

The Bush* strategy to fighting terrorism is bold-faced ineffective! I think this idea that somehow attacking countries in the middle east is the best way to stop it makes no sense because:

1. Part of what al-Quada is against is the governments of those countries, so we're kind of doing their work for them.
2. I think it's unlikely that dictators would want terrorists running around in their countries to a large degree anyways because a dictator by nature wants control, and harboring a terrorist group that extends beyond you country with access to weapons runs counter to that.

On the other hand, our disregard of international law has put us at odds with countries from whom we'd need intelligence and enforcement to catch terrorists - the Bush* policies have weakened the war on terror. Remember, we've caught a lot of them in Pakistan and other countries, some of the 9/11 terrorists were stationed in Germany, and the shoe-bomber was from England.