Mr. Green Screens:
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Can we fight al Qaeda, which is in Pakistan, better by fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? (Scratch chin.)
1. Oddly enough, the correct answer is "No." (The grammatically-correct explanation is "Your binary distinction is false.")
2. Even if "al-Qaeda" were SPECTRE, which is isn't, and even if there were some reason to go after remaining individuals from The Taliban, who are there (and not in the insurgency currently fighting us in Afghanistan), the answer would still be "No," because hot pursuit into Pakistan, which is the most unstable government in the world controlling real motherfucking nukes, is a stupider idea even than invading Iran. How much money do you suppose we've given Musharraf in the last seven years? He has no more room to maneuver. We had to hand over nuclear technology to India--a non-NPT signatory, Obama-Lugar fans--just as a palliative for what we've already done in Pakistan (which, may I remind you, resulted in the Pakistanis capturing the actual mastermind of the 9/11 attacks). We've lived with the failure to capture bin-Laden for seven years now; it seems a bit late to start rooting for just a few more troops to finish the job, and this time We Mean It.
3. If you truly believe that shedding more American blood in the fight against "al-Qaeda" is worthwhile, the same options are open to you as to Jonah Goldberg. US Military.com can help you find the enlistment program that's right for you.