It’s harder to make more money legally in an hour than you can giving a speech. The fees range all over the place, but it’s extremely lucrative. Many of us, including me, participate in this economy. Speaking agents routinely field requests from people who are staging events-for profit, for charity, for client entertainment, for education, for employee morale. Many people participate in it-journalists, thinkers, college professors, former politicians, consultants of all stripes. All of these changed circumstances demand a new approach to fighting terrorism - and much of what Mr.Speaking for money is a very large industry. ![]() Even in the terrorist playgrounds of Afghanistan, northwestern Pakistan and Yemen, terrorists have turned to more local feuds, which is one of the reasons that the United States has not witnessed a major terrorist attack since 2001. Osama Bin Laden is dead, as are Saddam Hussein and his two sons. Twelve years after 9/11, the United States has scored some amazing successes in the war on terrorism. Bush has little application in wars where one wishes both sides would lose. The original post-9/11 us-versus-them spirit championed by George W. There is another factor, too: Thanks to the Arab Spring, geopolitical scenarios have emerged in which the West is presented with no clear enemy - or ally - in the “war on terrorism.” This is especially true in Syria, where the civil war now effectively pits al-Qaeda versus Hezbollah. In Mali, we’re providing military aid to French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future.” In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al-Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. Already, thousands of Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. ![]() “In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. “Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror,’ but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America,” he said. Obama argued for a new model of fighting terror - one that does not involve a globe-spanning American military juggernaut responding with waves of drones and special-forces teams whenever terrorists strike. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But that level of sacrifice is less justified at a time when the primary terrorist threat to the United States lies with homegrown lunatics who kill a few people at a time with sporadic attacks using knives and pressure cookers. The trillion-plus dollars and 7,000-plus lives that the United States has spent prosecuting military conflicts over the last 12 years was properly justified as a means to stop an al-Qaeda terrorist network that was planning a steady wave of apocalyptic 9/11-style terrorist attacks, and depose rogue regimes that were openly committed to America’s destruction. But it was never a realistic goal to imagine that the United States could decisively smash the Islamist terrorist threat forevermore. America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were morally justified, as were the aerial campaigns in Libya, Pakistan and Yemen. Twelve years after the shock and horror of 9/11, Americans are beginning to have a mature political dialogue about the war on terror that extends beyond partisan rhetoric and absolutist slogans. ![]() The next issue of NP Platformed will soon be in your inbox. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |