KB: Saw same CBS piece, but there's a more troubling part.
You cited:
CBS had an incredible interview on TV last night with the mullahs in Pakistan. They were bragging about how easy it would be to bring America to its knees, how easy it would be to take over a jetliner and ram it into the White House; the interview was only a month or so old. . . . I don't know the game plan for beginning this war but those guys would be a likely starting point.
Most ominous was a question or statement by one of the holy terrors that the US can't accept "100,000 dead, 200,000 injured." I took the implication to be that such is a viable option for the holy terrors, and will cause the US to back off from retaliation and perhaps even from the Middle East.
Sadly, I fear that the long-reported disappearances and sales of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium from former Soviet stockpiles, coupled with Arab oil money and genocidal intent, means we could easily see a far more savage attack later. Maybe such an attack couldn't be stopped even if we'd not neutered much of our covert operations. However, we'd stand a much better chance of avoiding attacks now if the US senators and congressmen in power for the last 25 years had been realistic about our need to deal with our enemies before they deal with us.
I fear that our nation now lacks the will to eradicate radical Islam worldwide if such terror escalates. If the terror does continue or escalate, I believe that will change as even the decadent embrace revenge. I believe we owe it to our children and grandchildren--not to speak of our forefathers' sacrifices for our freedom--to go to any length necessary to avenge our dead and eradicate the threat to our nation.
I disagree with the otherwise insightful Charles Krauthammer that we should declare war. We can't declare war in any meaningful sense against individuals. We shouldn't declare war against nations because we need to offer no tipoff that we intend to destroy their military and their holy terror support infrastructure. We should have a policy of being silent but deadly in dealing with individuals, and giving after-the-fact explanations about whatever we had to do to nations that support them. International law cannot be applied to terrorist-supporting nations without tipping them off and vitiating the response. I am sure our intelligence agencies, curtailed as they have been, can sift through the usual suspects--Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, etc.--to determine where support has come from. I expect they already know.
I think it is crucial to realize that the short-term cost, no matter how great, logically cannot be greater than the ongoing threat. A demand to forbear retaliation today is a demand to withdraw from the Middle East tomorrow, then a demand for money, then . . . You get the idea; it never ends with hostage situations, and now the stakes will be vastly greater. The president needs to be candid with the nation about any asserted and credible threats, although of course that won't happen yet. Let the people make informed decisions about their votes and their lives, and see what kind of nation we are.
I haven't favored our ME policy for a long time but now I can't help but feel much more aligned with Israel and less sympathetic to the legitimate Palestinian grievances. It is either destroy our enemies or perpetually dance to their tune as we wonder where and when the next blow will come. We have to wonder anyway; we can at least have the solace that we are trying to eradicate them in the meantime. |
