I'm reading that the Obama administartion is planning to send 30,000 more US Troops to Afgahanstan in 2009 which will bring American  troop strength to 60,000.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081220/D956L7L80.html

I supported the original mission to overthrow the Taliban, however, I am skeptical of sending more American Troops into this war front, and not just for the very valid reason that other countries should be contributing more. Before we increase troops on the Afghan front, this is a good time to re-evalute the Afghan mission and the war-on-terror in general. Understand that I have no moral problem with sending America troops to foreign lands to fight and kill the terrorists.  I'm just questioning how productive it is, and whether there is a better approach.

I have advocated that the most effective way to fight the war-on-terror is thru immigration policy.  Let me explain this out-of-the-box idea.

I'm sure everyone has heard this before, but it remains true to this day: naming the enemy is half the battle.  If we can't name the enemy, then how can we devise a strategy to fight back.  Is the enemy Al Queda, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Taliban, Hezbollah...and so on?  These are all radical islamist groups. IMO, a paradym shift in outlook has to occur before we commit yet more American troops overseas to Afghanastan and elsewhere.  In my view we were attacked by radical islamists on 911 and  the attacks were jihad attacks.  Likewise the London subway, the Madrid Train bombings, the night club attacks in Bali, the suicide bombings in Israel, the video taped be-headings and on and on--you know the drill. The jihadis tell us in their video tapes, speeches, and websites, that these attacks are done in the name of Allah, and I believe them.  There are moderate muslims (the majority) and there are radical islamist (the minority) and the radicals islamists are at war with the non-muslim world and with their own moderate moderates.

I know that some posters here will have a hard time accepting that in the 21st century religion can be a motivator for these murderous attacks. Consider this:

The consistent need to find explanations other than religious ones for the attacks says, in fact, more about the West than it does about the jihadis.  Western Scholars have generally failed to take religion seriously.  Secularists, whether liberal or socialists, grant true exploratory power to political, social, or economic factors but discount the plain sense of religious statements made by the jihadis themselves.  To see why jihadis declared war on the United States and tried to kill as many Americans as possible, we must be willing to listen to their own explanations. To do otherwise is to impose a Western interpretation on the extremists, in effect to listen to ourselves rather than to them. (page 7)

http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Enemy-Jihadist-Ideology-Terror/dp/0300122578/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6762595-6507010?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176042269&sr=1-1

Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror by Mary Habeck

(My working definition: a radical islamist is one who wants to establish sharia law in the host country or believes in jihad attacks as a way to settle internaitonal disputes.)

I propose we re-orient our war against radical islam to start from the inside (the United States and other western countries) to the outside (their country of origin).  The best way to let the enemy--the radical islamists--know that we take them seriously is not to continue to send our military half way around the world to fight them, but rather to deny them residence in our countries.  Sounds simple, right?  I am saying before we send yet more troops to fight the enemy overseas, we stop enemy sympathizers and potential enemy combatants from residing in our countries.  It will send the right message and greatly improve our internal security.

I would not give any more green cards, tourist, student or work visas to radical islamists and any non-citizen radical islamists would be legally deported.  Before you jump all over me, consider that barring someone from traveling to this country or deporting them is not the death penalty, nor is it permanent internment.  It simply means the person can't reside here.  They can return to their country of origin and continue to be a radical islamst there over there.   

Here is a stupid example to make the point.  Let's say that during WWII someone sought to immigrate to the USA and we asked them to fill out a form which asked if they were a Nazi sympathizer.  And they check the "yes" box.  Would we admit them?  That's the concept at work here.

I know the above is thin on specifics. Still I'd like to get feedback on the concept.

A few stipulations:

1. Yes, there are religious crazies in Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism who we must keep under surveillance and prosecute when necessary.

2. Yes, the above may pose constitutional problems that must be addressed.