I'm certainly no expert on foreign policy or comparative religion but my strategy for how to address the terrorism problem involves a multiprong approach.
- Go after the funding. We're already doing this, right?
- Reform or shut down the Madrassas and other hate promoting schools. Aside: I hope we got something for the half billion of debt we just wrote off to Pakistan.
- Better intelligence.
- Give the average person a stake in the future. End the corruption, poverty, etc. If you have something to live for blowing yourself up doesn't seem like such an attractive option.
Before anyone paints the anti-Bush crowd as a bunch of peace activists you might want to take a survey to see how many of us supported the Afghanistan invasion. I, for one did. However, we should have stopped (or at the very least paused) with Afghanistan and finished the job right. By that I mean we should have used enough resources to capture/kill Bin Laden and have the country stabilized for elections. Think of the credibility we'd have right now if, A) we hadn't invaded Iraq, B) Bin Laden was gone, and C) Afghanistan was holding elections on schedule.
Applause! Applause! Someone who actually has ideas!
First, let's talk about Iraq. Um, I don't think anyone foreign or domestic said that Iraq did not have WMD. Simply disagreed on when to have a war, now or in 3-6 months. The US wanted 'Now' and proceeded. And you know? I kinda hate to say it, but in my heart of hearts, I was fairly certain Iraq had something. Why?
Iraq took 12 years of sanctions costing them 100s of billions of dollars. To end those sanctions, all they had to do was allow the UN access for awhile. That to me said "Something to hide". Seems it spoke pretty loudly to those who were trying to assess the situation too.
For the countries who protested the timing of the war, take a look at who did business with the "Oil for Food" program and who stood to get large contracts if sanctions were lifted. I find it highly unlikely that Russia for example, had any moral qualms about a war. Or at least their activities in Chechnya would indicate they aren't wholly on the side of peaceful actions.
As for what to do?
Choking the money is a nice idea. Hard to implement though. I read the 9/11 attacks cost only US$400 thousand.
Hard to stop a trickle of cash like that I'd guess. Then you get into mandating US/Western standards on all countries. Where I live, people have a real interest in not allowing the officials know too much about their finances. And I can have cash sent to any country or receive from any country just by visiting the local market. No bank or Western Union needed. And, nearly impossible to trace.
The Madrassas should be eliminated. Funny how so many countries allow teaching hate to the exclusion to math, reading, etc. And funny how so many Western countries turn a blind eye to it.
What you got for your debt forgivness was access to/through Pakistan and some help on terrorists. You know, the dictator there has his own life to worry about, his own country (Moslim) to keep in check. He isn't going to change things in a year or two. The assassination attempts on him have made him suddenly MUCH more enthusiastic though!
Better intelligence. Ok, so forget the laws/rules that say that you can't associate with or pay anyone who does not respect 'human rights'. If you want to find out about unsavory people and groups chances are you will need to hang around some people you wouldn't invite to your kid's school play. Admit that you are never going to be 100% certain of anything, especially in closed countries or with a group like alQueda.
Give the average person a stake. What does that mean?
How do I, for example, end corruption in Egypt? End poverty? Ok, nice idea. A little short on details, but a good thought.
Finally, yes, Afghanistan is a mess. However, that is a shining example of the much desired multinational operation. The US has little or nothing to do with security. The US troops are looking for UBL and ex-Taliban. NATO/EU troops are responsible for security. Of course they have not quite been able to decide who will send 5 helicopters, for example.
I don't label people anti-Bush just because they don't like war. I simply label people "informed" or "uninformed". Because lots and lots of people want to say "An international force would have this or that". And clearly for the past 30 years not a single UN or NATO operation has done much of anything to resolve a given situation.
Having a political deployment of military force is kinda what got GWB where he is today. The first Gulf War was fought with a 'coalition'. One of the things the US promised the Arab partners was that they would not remove Saddam. And here we are 13 years later...