First of all, I want to say that I strongly disagree with his statement that countries such as Yemen and Somalia can be stabilized through missile attacks. Not only because of the backlash that such attacks create against America in both Africa and the Middle East(as Omar pointed out), but because both of these countries, and particularly Somalia, may already be too far gone. Somalia has gone through multiple failed attempts at creating a viable government and order within its borders, and even the advances made by a US-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006 were erased long ago by the persistent rise of al-Qaeda affiliate Al-Shabaab. I am highly skeptical that traditional military force can eradicate anti-American terrorism.

Secondly, I know this post is about securing America, but I cannot help but become disheartened to read that violent extremists should be considered less of a threat because they lack the grand capabilities of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany to attack America directly. Yes, they do not have the nuclear capabilities or organizational structure of the aforementioned examples, but they are still torturing, killing, and obstructing the safety of many innocent people abroad (and domestically, although this is less frequent). More specifically, America can’t dissociate itself from the responsibility of combating terrorism because many attacks are executed as a protest of American policies and affiliation with its African/Middle Eastern allies. At the end of the day, terrorism may not be on the scale of communism or as apparent as fascism, but it is a massive threat nonetheless. While it may be more indirect now, its potential to become a more consistent, existential threat towards the U.S. homeland is very real.

The U.S. needs to go VERY far to protect itself and obstruct safe havens (and not only through military means)…just my humble thoughts!

I think Josh Kuyers is right that the majority of Iraq is Shiite, and it makes sense for Shiite candidates to outnumber Sunni Iraqis in the Iraqi government. He is also right that boycotting an election makes little sense – especially since you simply lose representation in government. Yet the essential question is the one that Halima raised – that of barring candidates from even running for elections. Why are the more activist Shiite parties so afraid of a free and fair election if they outnumber the Sunnis so much? Maybe because a major contender for the next election is (Shiite) Iyad Allawi’s party which includes many Sunnis and may actually succeed to achieve a government of national unity and reconciliation even if they don’t win an outright majority.

The fact of the matter is that many Iraqi Shiites differ from Iranian backed Shiite parties and would not vote for the pro-Iran Shiite Iraqi parties – such as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki’s more moderate Dawa Party. Because Allawi’s party, and other Sunni parties are seen as a threat if they receive a substantial percentage of the vote in a free and fair election, Maliki and Chalabi seem content on basically stealing the election through banning viable Sunni candidates under the pretense of “stopping Baathism.”

Now, however, Iraq is working toward Democracy, something promoted by both Bush & Obama Administrations, which for good or for bad means majority rule. Ideally there are minority protections and human rights so the Sunnis wouldn’t have to worry, but if Iraqi democracy is going to be effective everyone needs to participate. Boycotting elections because of an unpopular policy is setting a bad precedent for the future of Iraqi democracy. THAT is something to worry about!

While American interaction with Iraqi politics can have bad effects, if the Americans don’t apply pressure to end the exclusion of certain Sunni politicians from elections, is the election situation better or worse off? I would reckon worse.