resort to good old police-work and the judicial system to back it all up.
The problem is that many countries where we have radical militants operating have (a) porous borders and (b) an inadequate police/judicial system. So unless you want another situation like in Mali where there was free reign for militants then you do need the military involved hence a war on terror.
And that is the crux of the issue. When you look at weak states like Mali or Nigeria do people really want a hands off approach ?
The US & friends is the invisible fist behind Smith's invisible hand. America makes markets safe for capitalism. Empire is concerned with simulation, not reality.
So depressing, the stated reason for invading Iraq was they had chemical weapons. While lately FSB advisers to the Syrian government have been tactically using sarin gas to repel the FSA and Sunni mujahideen from strategic defenses. I only mention this for perspective, not to start a debate about Syria.
No I don't. And as a non-US citizen we are grateful that under Obama there has been a push towards multilateral engagement. And that is how you police the world: with established international treaties and institutions that have a strong moral authority.
And yes stamping our radicalism in places like Mali or Nigeria absolutely makes the US safer.
And that is the crux of the issue. When you look at weak states like Mali or Nigeria do people really want a hands off approach ?