There is a fine line between politics and military strategy. Especially in this case. Obviously, there are probably parts to the story we have not been told, that will have a major influence on how to handle this situation.

For example, there is the information that the gentleman here from India is mentioning about Pakistan.

I just hope that 10 years from now we can look back on whatever happens and view it as a time like WWII, when we had to erradicate the Nazis. Rather than another Vietnam.

PF


>Actually Perry, Tony Blair has not offered "total" support but more accurately "conditional and cautious" support, a stance taken by many other NATO countries.
>
>You see, the problem we're dealing with is much greater than giving bin Laden et al their just desserts. It relates to the prospect of a large military effort serving to de-stabilize the region, thus creating the epic "holy war" that bin Laden and his accomplices are trying to promote. Do we really want to play into his hand and start WWIII?
>
>Even an invasion of Afghanistan would be extremely difficult to pull off, much less all the middle eastern countries that have harbored terrorists. Let's not forget what happened when the soviets sent 100,000 troops in there 2 decades ago - it was their Vietnam.
>
>If we are to be succesful winning this war (and I honestly believe we will) it will have to be through gaining the approval of the international community as well as all of the arab states (possibly excluding Afghanistan if diplomacy fails). Only then can we go after the perpetrators without getting all the other radicals/extremists/religious zealots that aren't terrorists involved in an ugly, drawn-out and impossible to win quagmire.
>
>Intelligence and international collaboration is the key. Without it we are doomed to repeat the failures of our predecessors.
>
>-JT