Hillary Clinton indicated in the Drexel U debate that she did not know how you pursue al-Queda without engaging them in combat, as a rationale for keeping troops in Iraq longer.
I will not focus on whether we are in fact engaging al-Queda in Iraq in combat, but on the underlying premise that troops and fixed battles are the way to deal with a terrorist organization. I am not a specialist in this area, but from the moment I watched the 9/11 tragedy unfold on TV, I thought "al-Queda". (In the 1990s, many of us who worked in or flew to and from Asia knew of Philippine warnings to the US tha al-Queda planned to bomb airplanes over the Pacific, so this thought is perhaps not as far-fetched as it might seem.)
And then I thought that the Bush Administration would opt for the wrong strategy, of a war with massed troops and fixed battleplans, rather than a strategy which takes on al-Queda operatives one at a time--secret ops or dirty ops if you will. It's my understanding that most of al-Queda is very small cells which operate with relative autonomy. So, in a sports analogy, we play American football while the other side plays soccer, rendering the coach, the line, the quarterback calling the plays meaningless. We need to learn how to play soccer.
But there are other tools with which to address the conditions which give rise to new al-Queda recruits: so-called soft power. We have been deficit in soft power for the past 7 years (at least), and until our Presidential candidates recognize that this battle cannot be won by belligerence, our continued presence in Iraq undermines any purported successes on the soft power side (the schools, etc. which the Bush Administration touts)
How long will the Prez Candidate Class of '08 accept the meme that to pursue al-Queda, we must engage in combat, with the implication that large-scale troops are required to engage? Do you accept that?