"We'll always be vulnerable, no matter how tight our security. "
This is always a matter of degree, we have to be careful of absolutes. Several other terrorist attempts were thwarted after Sept 11th, so it is clear that taking action is better than taking no action.
"that provides us carte blanche to "remove" them as a "player" from the global political game"
We already have carte blanche, and have had since 1989. The issue is when we decide to get involved - it should only be when we are attacked. We should not succumb to our sovereign allies desires for us to be on the front lines of their internal conflicts. It is important whether we define this as a holy war, or a defensive action on our part. They are not the same thing. I vote for defense. We already know we can wipe out any country anywhere, and we are going to get pretty good at tracking down and neutralizing many of the terrorists that have left trails behind them. Let's be sure to leave it at that. Going into some kind of holy Crusade is a trap.
"But for god's sake, let's not run in fear and turn our country into an armed camp, or a police state."
You are saying three separate things here.
1) "let's not run in fear". No one suggests we are afraid, except taunting Taleban, which is not worthy of comment. Their attempts at boosting their internal morale is coming up against decreasing support, and inevitable military response beyond their expectations. Our psy-ops is better than their psy-ops, anyway. I just read a news release that reports Bin Laden has small cojones and was rejected by a Western girl. This is mostly just amusing, but you get my point.
2) not "turn our country into an armed camp". I disagree there. Carrying arms may well be a good idea, as are many other defensive measures. Statistics bear this out. Too bad we have to defend ourselves in our own country, but I don't have confidence that all global military action contemplated will, as you say "TRULY stop it". Won't happen. We're screwed for a few decades, until we can get #3 below under control as well.
3) not have "a police state". Arguably, we already pretty close already. How do we increase security and liberty at the same time, is our primary challenge, and should be stated that way. We are the "can do" civilization, that gets its strength from our ability to collaborate and innovate, and have freedoms at the same time.
In any case, we don't have a choice there, either. The legislation going through now is the beginning of an unprecedented examination of our lives, incl. telcom voice and data traffic, so we are all under scrutiny whether we like it or not. I don't quite hold with Rob't Metcalf's "End of Privacy" thesis, where everything is known about everyone, but I do think we can have domains of privacy, and domains of necessary public knowledge having to do with terrorist-related information.
As a technology-knowledgeable Libertarian, I know that the only way out of dishonest, out-of-control gov't action is total and complete openness of gov't, realtime daylight into all activities, all files, budgets, projects, with the only exception being very limited, specific military secrets, of which there are very few, and they don't last very long, except for the wrong reasons.
Recommended reading on that score: "Body of Secrets" by Bamford - overlong on some chapters but fairly presented and well researched. |
