(October 3, 2016 at 11:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: As to our presence in outposts. You mean, those strips of land we rent and lease, in ally and client states, in which we amass military equipment, that the governments in question don't seem to treat as an invasion..in an effort to be certain that should a fight arise (we have alot of proxy war experience) it plays out in someone else yard? Here again, we have no need to invent an enemy to apply this "faraway war" doctrine to....history tells us that they will present themselves with regularity.
Kind of a chicken or egg question, isn't it?
By most accounts Bin Laden and followers only got to the point that culminated in 9/11 by American troops being stationed in the vicinity of the most holy Islamic sites. I don't have to agree with Bin Laden's agenda to see that this is kind of a provocation. It's a no brainer.
Same with Iraq. The most holy sites of the Shia are there. So the whole invasion and occupation had to backfire at some point.
I for one couldn't care less who's parking their ass at some religious site. But religious people might, and there are always some taking it to a more radical level.
So, yes, the sheer presence is bound to create some enemies.
But I was more referring to the new cold war between Russia and NATO. That's what I observed since 1989. NATO moved closer and closer to the Russian borders and I was always thinking, for fucks sake, give them some time to breathe and to find a new identiy before you put them into a stranglehold. That's the ticket on which Putin rose to the level of power he now holds.