Because, invade one, and you will have to invade them all.
Then ... given your assumption ... we should invade them all, and make the experience so unpleasant for them that the next time one Arab country is tempted to come to the defense of an Arab aggressor receiving its just punishment, the leadership thinks "Hmm, nope, I remember the last time we did this and we lost twenty years of economic development, we'll sit this one out.
But I find your assumption not borne out by history. Historically, Arab countries have repeatedly been defeated in isolation, with no or few other Arab states coming to their defense. Right now, in Iraq, our problems are with Syria (Arab) and Iran (Aryan), while Jordan (Arab) and Egypt (Arab), to take two examples, are not only not helping the rebels but are actively helping suppress attempts to aid them. In the Arab-Israeli Wars, non-frontline Arab states generally delivered only token and ineffectual aid to the Arab side: in some of the wars, no aid at all.
In Afghanistan, we do indeed have a problem with an "ally" actually providing sanctuary for Al Qaeda and the Taliban -- but that ally is Pakistan, an Aryan (not Arab) country. Indeed, one of the just critiques of the Iraq Campaign is that we should have finished off the Taliban first, and if we had not been involved in Iraq we could have exerted far more pressure on Pakistan to deny sanctuary to the foe.
Arab borders are porous, and it takes no effort at all for mujaheddeen and suicide bombers to cross them.
Neutral Arab states should act to capture and imprison such malefactors: those states which do not should be considered as our next targets. I see no problem with widening a war against those who believe that they can claim neutrality while aiding our enemies ... though, as I mentioned, that's a smaller problem than you're implying.
I think that the much-dreaded fanatical fury of the Arabs, and of Islam as a whole, is a gigantic bluff, with just enough reality behind it to cow the timorous. In fact the "fanatical" Arabs have been easy meat in both conventional and guerilla wafare, and even as terrorists mostly ineffectual, save against their own civilian populations. So far in Iraq we have taken very light losses and inflicted horrendous losses upon the enemy: and every young Terrorist killed in Iraq is a virus no longer able to spread.
Think of the US Armed Forces as the planet's white blood cells :)
Quelling the Infection
Then ... given your assumption ... we should invade them all, and make the experience so unpleasant for them that the next time one Arab country is tempted to come to the defense of an Arab aggressor receiving its just punishment, the leadership thinks "Hmm, nope, I remember the last time we did this and we lost twenty years of economic development, we'll sit this one out.
But I find your assumption not borne out by history. Historically, Arab countries have repeatedly been defeated in isolation, with no or few other Arab states coming to their defense. Right now, in Iraq, our problems are with Syria (Arab) and Iran (Aryan), while Jordan (Arab) and Egypt (Arab), to take two examples, are not only not helping the rebels but are actively helping suppress attempts to aid them. In the Arab-Israeli Wars, non-frontline Arab states generally delivered only token and ineffectual aid to the Arab side: in some of the wars, no aid at all.
In Afghanistan, we do indeed have a problem with an "ally" actually providing sanctuary for Al Qaeda and the Taliban -- but that ally is Pakistan, an Aryan (not Arab) country. Indeed, one of the just critiques of the Iraq Campaign is that we should have finished off the Taliban first, and if we had not been involved in Iraq we could have exerted far more pressure on Pakistan to deny sanctuary to the foe.
Arab borders are porous, and it takes no effort at all for mujaheddeen and suicide bombers to cross them.
Neutral Arab states should act to capture and imprison such malefactors: those states which do not should be considered as our next targets. I see no problem with widening a war against those who believe that they can claim neutrality while aiding our enemies ... though, as I mentioned, that's a smaller problem than you're implying.
I think that the much-dreaded fanatical fury of the Arabs, and of Islam as a whole, is a gigantic bluff, with just enough reality behind it to cow the timorous. In fact the "fanatical" Arabs have been easy meat in both conventional and guerilla wafare, and even as terrorists mostly ineffectual, save against their own civilian populations. So far in Iraq we have taken very light losses and inflicted horrendous losses upon the enemy: and every young Terrorist killed in Iraq is a virus no longer able to spread.
Think of the US Armed Forces as the planet's white blood cells :)