The article "Three Wars on Terror" was published by John Arquilla on the website of the newspaper "The National Security" on September 10th .
The article carries a lot of comment on the difference in the approaches to war on terror of three American presidents.
Speaking of Barack Obama it is necessary to note that his earliest acts as president was to discard the phrase "war on terror," yet he has been waging just such a campaign these past four years with a skillful mix of subtlety and ferocity.
It's an open secret that Several major al Qaeda plots have been thwarted by aggressive, innovative intelligence programs, often conducted in a deeply networked fashion with our allies.
In addition to the killing of Osama bin Laden, many other operatives in the late terrorist capo's organization have found themselves on the receiving end of commando raids or Hellfire missiles, from Waziristan to Yemen and beyond.
Giving appraisal of the situation it's necessary to point out that the difference in the approaches taken by our two most recent presidents really speaks to there being two different wars on terror.
In this connection it’s worthwhile mentioning that Bush chose to attack other nations in his attempt to create a less permissive international environment for terrorist networks.
Obama has decided to take the more direct approach: going straight after the networks.
Speaking of George Bush it is necessary to emphasize that his strategy proved exceptionally costly and highly problematic in Iraq, and even his initial success in "going small" in Afghanistan was all too soon overtaken by a stalemate-inducing impulse to send large numbers of troops there.
Obama's concept of operations, on the other hand, has been working well, and will never break the bank or exhaust our military especially in the wake of his realizing, and reversing, the folly of surging more troops into Afghanistan, as senior military leaders persuaded him to do early in his presidency.
Analyzing the situation it’s necessary to emphasize that there was an earlier war on terror, crafted by Ronald Reagan and his close advisers in the mid-1980s, that began subtly and skillfully, too yet which soon foundered.
The authors draws a conclusion that Barack Obama has done much better by hewing close to the concept that Reagan initially embraced.
But, as was the case with Reagan, there is now a similar battle going on for Obama's strategic soul.
As for me I think that America itself can not solve the problem with terrorism. The countries of the whole world need to unite in order to eradicate the 21th century's evil forever.
The article carries a lot of comment on the difference in the approaches to war on terror of three American presidents.
Speaking of Barack Obama it is necessary to note that his earliest acts as president was to discard the phrase "war on terror," yet he has been waging just such a campaign these past four years with a skillful mix of subtlety and ferocity.
It's an open secret that Several major al Qaeda plots have been thwarted by aggressive, innovative intelligence programs, often conducted in a deeply networked fashion with our allies.
In addition to the killing of Osama bin Laden, many other operatives in the late terrorist capo's organization have found themselves on the receiving end of commando raids or Hellfire missiles, from Waziristan to Yemen and beyond.
Giving appraisal of the situation it's necessary to point out that the difference in the approaches taken by our two most recent presidents really speaks to there being two different wars on terror.
In this connection it’s worthwhile mentioning that Bush chose to attack other nations in his attempt to create a less permissive international environment for terrorist networks.
Obama has decided to take the more direct approach: going straight after the networks.
Speaking of George Bush it is necessary to emphasize that his strategy proved exceptionally costly and highly problematic in Iraq, and even his initial success in "going small" in Afghanistan was all too soon overtaken by a stalemate-inducing impulse to send large numbers of troops there.
Obama's concept of operations, on the other hand, has been working well, and will never break the bank or exhaust our military especially in the wake of his realizing, and reversing, the folly of surging more troops into Afghanistan, as senior military leaders persuaded him to do early in his presidency.
Analyzing the situation it’s necessary to emphasize that there was an earlier war on terror, crafted by Ronald Reagan and his close advisers in the mid-1980s, that began subtly and skillfully, too yet which soon foundered.
The authors draws a conclusion that Barack Obama has done much better by hewing close to the concept that Reagan initially embraced.
But, as was the case with Reagan, there is now a similar battle going on for Obama's strategic soul.
As for me I think that America itself can not solve the problem with terrorism. The countries of the whole world need to unite in order to eradicate the 21th century's evil forever.
There are really a lot of comment on the difference in the approaches to war on terror,however, only collaboration of different countries together can change the situation with terrorism for the better.It can tranform the political land in the beneficial way.
ОтветитьУдалитьThere IS a lot of comment (uncountable)
Удалитьfair!
ОтветитьУдалитьYou write rather than render - why not use the introductory cliches?
Slips:
... on the differenceS in the approaches to war ...
taken by our two most recent presidents - OUR?