After Iraq, Pakistan? Is Worrying About Pakistani Nukes Serving To Keep Us In Iraq?
The bloody assault by Pakistani troops on the Islamic militants occupying The Red Mosque in Islamabad just might mark the beginning of the end of the Musharraf regime and the beginning of a period of radical destabilization for Pakistan — a prospect that causes great consternation in the West where commentators remind us that Pakistan is nuclear-armed and bin Laden has remained at large in its untamed northern provinces.
Some Americans may feel reassured to know that national defense experts have already been imagining the scenario of the US military intervening in Pakistan to prevent nukes from getting into the hands of al Qaeda — scary scenes of terrorists stealing away with a few devices in the chaos that engulfs the country after Musharraf is ousted. Two such experts are Frederick Kagan, leading neo-con and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings and a likely under-secretary of Defense in the next Democratic administration. The Stanley Foundation has brought together a series of paired experts to “bridge the divide” between left and right in Washington and reestablish a stable bipartisan center. Kagan and O’Hanlon have coauthored “The Case for Larger Ground Forces”, The Stanley Foundation, April 2007 (http://www3.brookings.edu/views/articles/ohanlon/2007april_kagan.pdf ). In this paper they recommend increasing the size of America’s land forces (Army and Marine Corps) by 100,000. This is, of course, very similar to the current official plan to increase these services by 92,000.
The paper discusses a number of threats and scenarios which might “require” the deployment of ten and hundreds of thousands of US troops abroad. The most demanding of these scenarios is the radical Islamic Pakistan scenario which is so fanciful and extraordinary that I have quoted that section in it entirety below. I comment briefly on it afterwards.
“Of all the military scenarios that would undoubtedly involve the vital interests of the United States, short of a direct threat to its territory, a collapsed Pakistan ranks very high on the list. The combination of Islamic extremists and nuclear weapons in that country is extremely worrisome. Were parts of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal ever to fall into the wrong hands, Al Qaeda could conceivably gain access to a nuclear device with terrifying possible results. Another quite worrisome South Asia scenario could involve another Indo-Pakistani crisis leading to war between the two nuclear armed states over Kashmir.”The Pakistani collapse scenario appears unlikely, given that country’s relatively pro-Western and secular officer corps. But the intelligence services-which created the Taliban and also have condoned, if not abetted, Islamic extremists in Kashmir-are more of a wild card. In addition, the country as a whole is sufficiently infiltrated by fundamentalist groups-as the attempted assassinations against President Mubarak (sic) make clear-that this terrifying scenario of civil chaos must be taken seriously. Were this to occur, it is unclear what the United States and like-minded countries would or should do. It is very unlikely that “surgical strikes” could be conducted to destroy the nuclear weapons before extremists could make a grab at them. It is doubtful that the United States would know their location and at least as doubtful that any Pakistani government would countenance such a move, even under duress. If a surgical strike, a series of surgical strikes, or commando-style raids were not possible, the only option might be to try to restore order before the weapons could be taken by extremists and transferred to terrorists. The United States and other outside powers might, for example, come to the aid of the Pakistani government, at its request, to help restore order.
“Alternatively, they might try to help protect Pakistan’s borders (a nearly impossible task), making it hard to sneak nuclear weapons out of the country, while providing only technical support to the Pakistani armed forces as they tried to put down the insurrection. One thing is certain: given the enormous stakes, the United States would have to do anything it could to prevent nuclear weapons from getting into the wrong hands.
“Should stabilization efforts be required, the scale of the undertaking could be breathtaking. Pakistan is a very large country. Its population is more than 150 million, or six times that of Iraq. Its land area is roughly twice that of Iraq; its perimeter is about 50 percent longer in total. Stabilizing a country of this size could easily require several times as many troops as the Iraq mission-a figure of up to one million is easy to imagine.
“Of course, any international force would have local help. Presumably some fraction of Pakistan’s security forces would remain intact, able, and willing to help defend the country. Pakistan’s military numbers 550,000 Army troops; 70,000 uniformed personnel in the Air Force and Navy; another 510,000 reservists; and almost 300,000 gendarmes and Interior Ministry troops. But if some substantial fraction of the military broke off from the main body, say a quarter to a third, and was assisted by extremist militias, the international community might need to deploy 100,000 to 200,000 troops to ensure a quick restoration of order. Given the need for rapid response, the United States’ share of this total would probably be over half-or as many as 50,000 to 100,000 ground forces-although this is almost the best of all the worst-case scenarios.
“Since no US government could simply decide to restrict its exposure in Pakistan if the international community proved unwilling or unable to provide numerous forces, or if the Pakistani collapse were deeper than outlined here, the United States might be compelled to produce significantly more forces to fend off the prospect of a nuclear Al Qaeda.”
There used to be a popular piece of strategic wisdom that said, “Never get involved in a land war in Asia.” Good advice… and, of course, we are now deep into Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems once you throw off restraint and reject wisdom you might as well plunge deeper into dangerous territory; at least that seems to be the preference of the nascent bipartisan center now trying to regain its footing after being tripped up in Iraq.
It is tempting to conclude that these guys are just nuts. Certainly they haven’t learned much from the adventure in Iraq which they both supported. But we shouldn’t dismiss them; there are some powerful forces in Washington that want this kind of thinking to be part of the “new center”.
Kagan and O’Hanlon greatly underestimate the troops needed to invade and stabilize (read ‘occupy’) Pakistan. Pakistanis are not fond of Americans and they won’t see us as liberators. They are likely to put up the same sort of fight that Iraqi Sunnis have against occupation. Hard evidence suggests that the pacification of Iraq would have required 500,000 troops (not the 150,000 that Rumsfeld insisted was sufficient.) Kagan and O’Hanlon point out that Pakistan is six times are large in population. So why do they say “a figure of up to one million is easy to imagine” when the Iraq experience indicates that up to three million would be needed in Pakistan? My guess is that they figured people would stop reading it they included a scenario that requires three million Americans deployed to Pakistan. So instead they offer a Rumsfeldian fantasy.
If the “new center” in Washington were seriously considering interventions abroad that might require up to 3 million troops deployed they would need to start providing basic training to a significant portion of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 — and that, of course, means conscription. Really! If Kagan/O’Hanlon Pakistani chaos scenarios require a military response from the U.S. we need to get serious about a major re-make of our Army. We need a structure much more like we had during World War II — capable of mobilizing millions of soldiers to fight in and occupy territory overseas. We have a relatively small professional Army these days, fundamentally unsuited for this sort of mission.
It is not for an imagined Pakistani chaos that the Army and Marine Corps are now in the process of growing by 92,000, but rather to make possible the routine extended deployment of 75,000 troops to the Persian Gulf including up to 60,000 in Iraq. That is what we should expect first and foremost from the ‘new center’. And if we don’t like that prospect (say 50,000 troops still in Iraq in 2020) we should call them on it.
We should also argue strongly to put an end to the American strategy of offensive counter-proliferation wars. The first one in Iraq has been a disaster. We must not let Republicans or Democrats lead us into others in Iran, Korea, or Pakistan.
Charles Knight, co-director Project on Defense Alternatives, can be emailed at: cknight(at)comw.org
Well the nuclear genies are coming home to roost and the ‘flailing arms’ scenario is taking shape in the western media, a few decades late as usual !! To my recollection the Indian government has been screaming about this very scenario for years/decades.
Now that the immediate threat is directed to the U.S. thanks to Al Qaeda we begin to sit up and take notice. Once again as so often in the friggin past we are responsible for our own failures or apathy or wilfull engagements or whatever you wish to call it.
Im really confused as to what U.S. interests means. Shouldnt U.S. interests mean security for all of us Americans ??
the world needs to put these people in the hague…how many UN troops would be needed to invade and stabilize the US in order to get nukes out of the wrong hands? they’d probably be greeted as liberators!
Great piece Charles, easy for you or anyone to criticize another persons answer to a very real problem involving a sworn enemy who openly says they want to kill us all.
How about an intelligent alternative if you have one. The scenerio doen’t leave many options if you think about it
Two chickenhawks wetting their beds fantasizing… Iraq was softened up by Clinton for the Bush gangsters. Imagine what would happen to the US Army if it went into Iran. And Iran would be a pushover compared to Pakistan. Hey, Kagan and O’Hanlon, enough hard-ons already. Wake up!
“The United States and other outside powers might, for example, come to the aid of the Pakistani government, at its request, to help restore order.”
Wow! Send armies to kill Pakistanis in order to protect a single person: A U.S.-friendly dictator? You must be joking. Pakistanis despise America as much as the resistance in Iraq does already.
The U.S. regime is right in fearing future attacks by stateless individuals or groups that are already pissed off at American’s war on Islam. Sooner or later, unfortunately, the U.S. is going to get it.
For America to be safe, the best way is to use its moral authority—some of it is still remaining—to lead the way for the world to destroy all nuclear weapons. Either that, or America should stop behaving like a rouge state, for the future is bleak indeed.
Saila … its too late for that already. We have been a rogue state for a while already. The only thing we have going for us now is moral depravity. Thanks to the ass-backwards views of a majority of americans ( as expressed by salvation above) we are on a mission to destroy everything around us.
Not a single word regarding NUCLEAR India, eh? Think they’ll just sit on the sidelines if Pakistan falls apart? Or the rest of the world, for that matter? It’s not like Pakistan has the capability of striking the US mainland, first of all, and any use anywhere else is all but a suicide trip that would pretty much zap support for “terrorism” altogether, with the whole millions of civilians dead or dying in a flattened, radioactive country and all.
More fear of Armageddon from the we-hate-Democracy Armageddonists.
frank1569, righty-o. the immediate short term threat of a destabilized pakistan is not a terrorist threat to the US (the only thing we seem to care about), but a (nuclear?) war w/india. but a few hundred million dead punjabis doesn’t even register to kagan types, or apparently even the author of this article.
besides isn’t this the scenario the neocon nazis cream in their pants about? you know, WORLD WAR III!!! you think this country is fascistic now, just wait till they try to mobilize 1-3 million troops (somehow i think they’ll try to bomb their way out of this issue, but we’ll see.)
what hath the bushies wrought? they don’t even care.
SUBJECT: After Iraq, Pakistan? Is Worrying About Pakistani Nukes Serving To Keep Us In Iraq? by Charles Knight
Dear Editor:
Mr. Charles Knight has written an article that is factually incorrect, has several errors in it, is biased and presents only one side of the picture. Mr. Knight biased analysis has serious flaws and has factual errors in it. The sad fact is that many of your readers may read this dribble. Your story shows a lack of historical knowledge of Pakistan and only peripheral knowledge of the political process of Pakistan. This is endemic of all Neocon’s who are not taught anything positive about Pakistan. Someone needs to do his/her homework.
Frederick Kagan, is a neo-con with an agenda. They are Islamphobic and anti-Pakistan. The American Enterprise Institute is the same den of inequity that got us into the Iraqi fiasco. It would be a sad for American if Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings becomes the next Secretary of Defense in the next Democratic administration. The Stanley Foundation’s “experts” are simply echoing the failed policies of the Bush Administration.
Mr. Knight’s biased analysis has serious flaws and factual errors in it. The sad fact is that many of your readers may read your dribble.
All military analysts agree that America cannot fight in Afghanistan without Pakistan.
Pakistan helped the US as a friend, not as a paymaster. No amount of money is enough for lost Pakistani lives. It is insensitive to place a Dollar value on the heads of 700 Pakistani soldiers who lost their lives fighting the terrorists. It is crass to place a monetary value on the hundreds of Pakistani civilians who died because Pakistan has been supporting the American war in Afghanistan. Neither the government, nor the people nor the president of Pakistan are indentured servants of anyone. Pakistan was helping the US as a friend and an ally.
Mr. Knight’s selective amnesia also fails to mention that for the past 60 years, Pakistan has been supporting American policies, and was the founding member of SEATO and CENTO. Pakistan was a cold war ally fighting the USSR and the defeat of the “Evil Empire” in Pakistan led to the implosion of the USSR. 2 million Pakistanis, Afghans and other died in defeating the USSR in the 90s. Back then Pakistan paid more than $450 for F-16s. It is a matter of historical record that Pakistan never got ht money back and did not get the planes either. Then one wonders why there is anti-Americanism in the world!
For helping the US in Afghanistan, an anti-Pakistan government was installed in Kabul that proliferated drugs and failed to take control of the country!! It is articles like this that perpetuates a feeling of un-appreciation among Pakistanis, and reinforces the image of ingrate Americans. This ungratefulness, and the “do more” mantra creates anti-Americanism in South Asia. Because of its persistently, invective, biased and bad reporting, the New York Times is fast becoming irrelevant as far is news is concerned.
For all of President Musharraf’s faults, Pakistan is forging ahead with a 7% growth rate and record foreign reserves. Pakistan is the fourth largest state in the world, and a nuclear state advancing at a phenomenal rate of economic growth. She has motorways that can only be the envy of South Asia, and is building bullet trains and huge new cities in Baluchistan and Sindh. Pakistan is attracting huge investments in automobile and technology. Just in the past few weeks Dubai based companies are investing $26 Billion Dollars in two islands. Pakistan’s FTA with China will be a boon to Pakistani and Chinese industrialists who are setting up 6 Chinese industrial zones in Pakistan to build and then export Chinese goods from Pakistani soil.
You are right. The Pakistan Army (2 million strength) Pakistan and Pakistanis will resist any invading forces. Pakistan will move ahead and is moving ahead.
Pakistan has Tae-dong based ICBMs and Cruise missles based on unexploded US Cruise missles thrown in the Northern areas. The reach of Pakistani missles is Inter-Continantal. Draw your own conlusions when attacking Pakistan.
If Muslim Fundamentalists have a chance to obtain a nuke, it would likely come from Pakistan, Russia, or North Korea. What the probability of their obtaining a nuke is would be a wild assed guess. There are more Muslims near nukes in Pakistan than in the other places.
Empires fail when they run out of money and there are too many wars to attend to.
What marked Eisonhower was that as a military man he knew the limits of military power. (it took him 9 months to run to Berlin when napoleon did it in one month!
The present policy of expressing military might is in the hands of an AWOL ex-National Guard(Bush) and an ex military contractor(Cheney). The failed generals of the pentagon have not won a war since 1945 (except Panama ,…and Grenada!).
The only Army like it or not that has won 4 wars in 20 years is the Israeli army.It lost last summer by going to war for no reason and thinking like Americans.
One would argue that the most criminal weapons of war to date are Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can explain the first but why the second.? Now planners are talking about first strike or second strike as if they were ordinary weapons and not weapons of mass destruction which may destroy all life on earth.I predict the American empire will go the way of the Spaniards and the Portuguese,not the Romans or the British.
Unless they can persuade others to fight for them .To date only the Canadians and the Dutch are helping in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Even the Brits are going home.Right .The decadence is in full bloom.
Hey salvation : read Saila ; the prerequisite of finding an alternative solution is wanting to instead of wringing your hands,gnashing your teeth and sniffling “woe is us”.
If American foreign policy based solely on military might remains morally bankrupt why would THINKING American citizens expect higher moral standards of OTHER rogue states.
“the international community might need to deploy 100,000 to 200,000 troops to ensure a quick restoration of order. Given the need for rapid response, the United States’ share of this total would probably be over half-or as many as 50,000 to 100,000 ground forces-although this is almost the best of all the worst-case scenarios.”
what international force is going to do this? and we are stretched thin in iraq as it is. dream on!
Pakistan next? What happened to Iran, that fall off of the table? Sure hope so.
A lot of our most knowledgable military generals say our military is broken, and they are correct. If we don’t get our ass out of Iraq and do it quick, our army will be a lot more broke.
Our treasury is broke too, to even think of fighting another war anyplace is beyond belief. We’d better bring our troops home and hope we can prevent our country from being attacked. A war with Pakistan is insane bull; and that’s absolutely right Frank, what will India do? What would China do is another good question? Sadly, the United Staates is pretty much all alone now in this world. We have managed to alienate ourselves from the rest of humanity.
I have thought that support for the Pakistani military leader might have been the price for over flights when we went into Afghanistan. If this was the case, I guess the price has been paid and the next leader may be in the wings. Let us hope that the new leader is friendly towards the U.S. and that we take action now so that the country does not fall apart in the mean time.
We discuss fightng a war in which neither side has any cnance of wining. WW3. Which side can win a nuclearized conflict? Not even the ones who don’ t fight in it. Oh… when and how would this war ever end?
salvation:
“How about an intelligent alternative if you have one. The scenario doesn’t leave many options if you think about it.” How about thinking outside of the box? Destroy nuclear weapons. Sound very utopian, does not? Yet, it is the only solution.
Alas, when that pygmy of a man, plain spoken Harry “Bomber” Truman, re-introduced draft in the peace time, American military was turned into loose cannon. And what do loose cannons do? They wreck the ship. And that is exactly what happened with our ship of state.
All this talk about weak American army is the crap as talk about missile gap of decades ago. All those crap scenarios are designed not for real wars but for the increase in military budgets to be directly channeled to the private contractors’ pockets.
There is nothing new in war being modus operandi of Imperialism as the last stage of Capitalism.
Nuclear Bomb is that proverbial rope, created by last Empire to be hanged. And hanged she will be.
Let me say this : were we to go behind the polemics and get to the essence , we’d find that everyone here is right. But then isn’t this how whole nations go to war in the first place.
gytian is right ,in saying that India has been screaming futilely for ages about the dangers posed .Saila is correct : the US and its partners in crime should take the moral lead in setting in motion true Nuclear Disarmament (little chance of that happening though).frank1569 is right : India is hardly likely to sit idly on the sidelines ,twiddling its thumbs . And jedediah is spot on : the resulting nuclear exchanges will wipe out a billion of so ( and even the likes of Madeline Albright will find that hard to airily wave away as ‘collateral damage’) etc.
Pakistan , very simply ,has for long, been the Achilles Heel of the world.
What should be of vital concern to all is whether or not she turns into the flash that detonates the nuclear powder keg.
However as events unfold , one gets a chilling and ineluctable sense of deja vu - with the world of 1939.Rushing on at breakneck pace .
salvation July 13th, 2007 2:34 pm
Great piece Charles, easy for you or anyone to criticize another persons answer to a very real problem involving a sworn enemy who openly says they want to kill us all.
How about an intelligent alternative if you have one. The scenerio doen’t leave many options if you think about it
hey salvation, have you noticed how many people the neocons who are running the US are ready to kill on their various pretexts? does that bother you at all?
or is that as it should be? as long is it’s not you? and still you are not feeling safer. doesn’t that give you a clue that neocon permanent war is not the answer?
We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
George Orwell is double plus good.
This is all very disturbing. We could be talking about an anti-American/anti-western Muslim fundamentalist state with nukes soon.
I despise Musharaf, but I would hate to see him fall because of the alternative. Some voicers here are suggesting Pakistan should be turned into a true democracy. I have serious doubts it would last long, as the Islamic extremists would use the system to destroy the system and turn it into a war-mongering theocracy. Hopefully, the Pakistani left unites against the Islamic extremists, and does not lend a hand in helping to remove Musharaf(just as the Iranian left helped get rid of the Shah in Iran in 1979, only to get betrayed by the Muslim extremists). As corrupt, evil and dictatorial as Musharaf may be, hopefully some deals can be struck with true moderates, moderate Muslims and the left to form some sort of coalition to stablize Pakistan.
If a theocracy does come to power, then hopefully it doesn’t get any worse than another Indian-Pakistani war. Let us thank the myopic neo-conservatives for this, as they played a large role in creating this mess.
“American strategy of offensive counter-proliferation wars” what proliferation exactly was it that the U.S.A. was offensively countering in Iraq?
Boy- if that’s what you call your country’s involvement, then you got a long way to go in getting to the truth of the matter. Keep at it, you will, given enough time bump into it sooner or later.
I believe it is now time to stop calling the neo-conservatives anything other than WAR CRIMINALS! To the Hague with them.
peaceistruth:”If a theocracy does come to power, then hopefully it doesn’t get any worse than another Indian-Pakistani war. ”
What a remarkably blinkered perspective.So blithely cavalier. One would really be hard put to find a finer ,more telling example of the West’s typical ” as long as they ain’t pissing in my own tent ” mindset .
Let me say this : for once both Indians and Pakistanis would be united in their outrage at such spectacularly callous and off -hand remarks .
Surely even a child could see that were India and Pakistan ever to go to war yet again , there are no guarantees that either (or both ) sides would fight exclusively with conventional weaponry . And positively refrain ( despite every temptation )from unleashing their nuclear arsenals . (Even that self-professed paragon of wartime ethical conduct ,the US ,has never pulled its punches in war. It open-handedly blanketed large swathes of Vietnam with its Agent Orange . And more recently ,has been most generous in its use of depleted uranium ammunition etc. in both the Gulf Wars.)
Should this ever happen ,at least a billion would be obliterated . ( Which might not be such a bad thing in itself ,from the Western standpoint :”more goodies for the rest of us over here you know “. ) The entire subcontinent would be reduced to nuclear wasteland.
However please bear in mind that the resulting nuclear winter would ,soon enough ,wipe out the rest of the known world .( Including ,alas and alack ,the Western world.)
President Musharrif in addressing the United Nations aprox 2-3 years ago and just recently King Abdullah of Jordan addressing Congress pointed out the problems needing to be faced to
halt the rising extremism in the Moslem world.
Sadly both — although regarded as friends of the USA — were ignored.
Why?
If the USA knows best its doing a bloody poor job of it and in the end only reaps what it sows..
The stability of Pakistan is not only important for the West and the people of Pakistan itself but for India and Afghanistan. Pakistan supported (before 911)and continues to support the Taliban extremists in Afghanistan and militant seperatists in the Indian part of Kashmir. Should the Musharaff regime fall to extremists you can bet a Taliban style regime will take over Pakistan and things will become ten times worse from Kashmir to Kabul. Afghans do not want to live under the Taliban again and this would be the first goal of an Islamist Pakistan. Afghans are very angry at Pakistan for this. I don’t like dictatorships or Musharaff but he is far better than the Talibanesque radical Islamists! As a Muslim I believe we need to support the moderates and empower them in the region especially moderate Pakistanis and we need to help Afghanistan and India as buffer states to contain Pakistan.
Michael O’Hanlon is “…a likely under-secretary of Defense in the next Democratic administration”??
That ruins my day. Either the writer believes Hillary Klintstone is guaranteed the nomination (and the election), or he believes the rest of the pack is as korporatist as she is.
The US’s policies in the Middle East remind me of an alcoholic trying to figure out how to handle the results of his drinking, while ignoring the fundamental fact that it is the drinking itself which is causing the problems. So long as we are there, the problems will get worse. The ONLY thing that will help is for us to be gone. Period. Seems like common sense to me: We are much less likely to be attacked by terrorists or otherwise if we get back on our side of the earth and not bother anybody over there.
Seems like a simple choice: What is good for the whole planet–us out of the Middle East–versus what is good for the Zionists, oil pigs, and war fascists. Too bad it’s the latter, and not the former, making the choices and setting the rules.
First, I am grateful to numerous readers for taking the time to comment. The issue of American military intervention in Iraq and possibly in Pakistan is of great importance to Americans and has direct effect on the lives of millions of people who live in the region. As several writers pointed out, it matters who dies as a result of flimsy scenario-building in Washington.
My article was a sort of “wake up call” about danger signs on our road ahead; not as it may have seemed about danger in Pakistan, but rather about the danger of a new bipartisan “center” in Washington that would have the U.S. stay in Iraq for decades to come.
The 100,000 person build up of the Army and Marine Corps that Kagan and O’Hanlon support is grossly insufficient for the Pakistan scenario they create to justify it. It is sufficient when added to current troops strengths to keep a garrison of 60,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely.
Given the policy choices being discussed and made in Washington it is my informed guess that we won’t see an Army/Marine Corps invasion of Iran or Pakistan or North Korea. But, minimally, they are keeping the option open to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
And by the way, the current plan to increase Army and Marine Corps personnel by 92,000 is supported by most all the leading contenders for president. Makes you wonder what their intentions are regarding Iraq policy.
Salvation asks what “an intelligent alternative” is for the scary scenario of a chaotic Pakistan. I won’t attempt a full answer here as it would mean writing another article, but I will list some things it must include:
As Saila says the U.S. must take seriously the mission of ridding the world of nuclear weaponry. Luckily fissile material is hard to make; we must get serious about instituting really good controls on it. Can’t do that if we continue to insist on double standards about who gets to have it and who doesn’t.
The U.S. must use its influence with Israel to push them to settle with the Palestinians. End that conflict and immediately the threat to America from radical Islamic regimes begins to recede.
The U.S. must end its occupation of Iraq. It is the single greatest cause of Muslim antipathy toward the U.S.
The U.S. should move its military forces off-shore of all Middle Eastern nations. Our troops ashore are a ready-made recruiting poster for al Qaeda.