Stanley Kurtz writes about the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Waziristan.

Tragically, this may be the only solution:

No patchwork scheme—and all our present recent schemes…are mere patchwork—will settle the Waziristan problem. Not until the military steam-roller has passed over the country from end to end, will there be peace. But I do not want to be the person to start that machine.

Nor does anyone else, so far, but it may be inevitable, for some future administration, of either party.

Like the "military steam-rollers" that rolled through southern Lebanon in 2006 or flattened Fallujah in 2004? Yes, those were very thoughtful approaches to counter-terrorism.

Like the "military steam-rollers" that rolled through southern Lebanon in 2006 or flattened Fallujah in 2004?

No, nothing like them. I think he had in mind the kind of military steam-roller that leaves little property or life in its wake.

Oh, of course, with everyone dead, there will be peace. How silly of us not to have realized that.

Oh, of course, with everyone dead, there will be peace. How silly of us not to have realized that.

When all the people alive want only victory (which means defeat, i.e., conversion or death of the infidel) or death, or at least those alive in control of the region, and will continue to work toward any means to attain that goal, what is your alternative, Offsides? Serious question.

History; particularly that of the British empire's track record in the NorthWestern
Frontier in the 19th and earlier 20th century;
the last being the campaign against the Fakir of
Waziristan; which lasted 25 years would challenge thaty kind of strategy. Roberts faced them at Bunar, among other locations; nearly half a
century later Churchill and his colleague Aylmer
Haldane (future military commander in Iraq) faced a Mad Mullah at Malakand That was why both the newly created Pakistani govt and the remnants of the Indian Civil Service argued against any direct intervention in that zone. One wonders why so few bring up the utter artificiality of Pakistan's borders carved out of Pushtun, Afridi,
Kashmir, Sind, & Baluchi sub vilayets while making so much of Iraq's three component vilayets.
Waziristan and Bajaur among others are likely to fall to the emerging Taliban Deobandi mini-state.
The real question becomes what happens to sites like Kahuta; the Pakistani Oak Ridge, will it fall to this "Rough Beast Slouching Toward Bethlehem"

Offside only likes idealistic warm and fuzzy solutions that leave him with a feeling of moral superiority but in a more existentially precarious position.

I was reminded of this history, yet again, in reading Charles Stross's novella on the British
secret services struggle against the Cthluthu menace,"The Concrete Jungle" and one sees a reference to Francis Younghusband intrepid spy and explorer with the Chittrali warriors. By the way. the amin work where it appears: "The Atrocity
Archives" written around 1999; is disturbingly prescient with mention of German speaking terrorists, some who happened to be Saudi; envoking an atrocity with the help of Iraqi Mukharabat and a fellow named Yusuf Quradawi; to bring forth the "Old Ones"; Odd where one could
find a neocon back then; huh.
neocons

When all the people alive want only victory (which means defeat, i.e., conversion or death of the infidel) or death, or at least those alive in control of the region, and will continue to work toward any means to attain that goal, what is your alternative, Offsides? Serious question.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but it appears to me that the Taliban doesn't run Waziristan, but are allied to the tribal powers that do. But even if we grant that the Taliban runs that region, what indication is there that they want what you say they want? Even when they were allied with Al Qaeda and in control of Afghanistan, I see no strong evidence that the Taliban seriously considered exporting their brand of religion.

I can't claim to know the solution, but to answer Rand's question, maybe we should consider the following:

(a) This blog claims we have won in Anbar. Did we achieve peace there by steamrolling over the province or using more enlightened methods? We see our immensely powerful military working not as genocidal maniacs but rather as peacekeepers and peace enablers, promorting democracy and good governance. Apparently this works better. Took a long time for some to figure this out, but better late than never. In the end people don't change with a gun to their head, whether it is held by AQI or the US military.

(b) So how is Al-Qaeda doing in Turkey, in Jordan, in Malaysia, in Indonesia. Do you think AQ is doing so poorly there because of our efforts or because of the revulsion average Muslims develop over time for AQ's brand of end-times Islam. Contrary to an opinion quite often posted here (not by Rand), Islam isn't the problem. Give AQ time in any country and they will wear out their welcome.

(c) Is Pakistan, a country which has actually been run by a woman (now under house arrest), the kind of people who will subject themselves to an AQ regime? Seriously, it only takes patience on our side to watch such a development self destruct.

(d) In the Middle East or elsewhere, support democracy in Isalimc countries very silently and in the background. Public support from the US whether for Abbas in Palestine or Musharaff in Pakistan is tantamount to the kiss of death. Really, we are not liked.

(e) Attack another country only if first attacked. Pre-emptive strikes are both immoral and ineffective. We will not like to see China lauch a pre-emptive strike. Let us try to act within the family of nations in accord with a uniform set of laws for all nations.

(f) Accept that especially in todays internet age, information can't be the sole property of any nation. Yesterday my wife was listening to Pink Floyd and wondered who sang the vocals on the Great Gig in the Sky. In seconds (Wikipedia) we knew more than we wanted to know about Clare Torry. So every weapon built will be known to all man. which simply means that we must be ever careful of where we push technology. Likewise for Nuclear weapons. If Iran develops Nukes, that is the inevitable conclusion to the ever growing connectivity between all humans on this planet. I look forward to the day when the concept of the nation state ends and when peace comes from the fact that most reasonable people simply want to get on with their lives.

(c) Is Pakistan, a country which has actually been run by a woman (now under house arrest), the kind of people who will subject themselves to an AQ regime? Seriously, it only takes patience on our side to watch such a development self destruct.

The problem is that Waziristan is not really a part of Pakistan in any meaningful sense. Musharraf has no authority there, and neither did Bhutto.

Taliban is essentially Deobandi; put it another way; Indian Wahhabism. It considers all other creeds including Moderate Islam as dhaliyah; pre-islamic and pagan. That's why they destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan, bulldoze other mosques in Bosnia, and most likely would do the same to St. Paul's Cathedral. Much like Mohammed did when he
drove the Jews of the Beni Quarasha tribe out of the Yathrib Valley and forced them to convert or die; Yathrib is known by another name, now, Medina. But hey what's 1400 years of occupation between friends.

Offside wrote:
"...peace comes from the fact that most reasonable people simply want to get on with their lives."

What if most people, whether reasonable or not in each others eyes, have always wanted this all the way back from the dawn of humanity? And that even so things always end up the same way?