ACCORDING to the supporters of the President’s policy to ‘stay-on’ in Iraq, the same reason is “we should side with the moderates in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories in this global struggle against Islamic extremists.” (Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, March 4)
The question is why are there ‘moderates’ fighting extremists in these four areas? How come moderates are not fighting extremists in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iran and Syria?
It looks like whenever a foreign nation has invaded, it then becomes a fertile ground for moderates to battle extremists. The U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, opening up fronts for this ‘moderate-extremist’ struggle to take place. Israel invaded Lebanon 20 some years ago and frequently makes forays into Palestinian territories and those two areas seemed to have become fertile battlegrounds for conflict.
I figure the U.S. and Israel can do one of two things. Invade Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iran and Syria as well, install liberal leaders (not like conservative ideologues as they have now) and let the entire Middle East be the stage for moderate and extremist Islamists to fight each other. (Meanwhile, the U.S. can help write some of their constitutions and capture oil and gas reserves while at it.)
Or the U.S. and Israel can learn from history that invading nations in and of itself will not deter terrorism but enhance their strength and therefore you have to defend and “annihilate” your opponents if they do choose to strike. Look at battlefield successes of the ‘67 and ’73 for example when Israel was badly outnumbered and was subject to surprise attacks.
The reason the U.S. does not want to vanquish its enemies is because more money can be made by not doing so. Not out of love or consideration. The reason Israel does not want to is because she is a decent nation and desires peace with its neighbors.

MATT PHILIPS
Mangilao, Guam