A couple of problems:
"Villagers in some backward country that harbors terrorists should wake up one morning and notice the terrorists among them are dead or missing"
The assumption so far is all evidence is secret, and action can be unilateral. This then makes the military the ultimate worldwide secret police, with full authorization to be used for any executive purpose, stated or unstated. There is no barrier to using the military, for example, as it is proposed for Columbia, to spend $93 million to protect Occidental Petroleum pipeline.
It all boils down to : are you willing to place all trust in the executive branch, without oversight?
"Terrorist cells in this country should be located, their headquarters raided and their members arrested before they know what hit them. "
In the US, the rules of evidence and more publicity are more likely to restrain abuse.
"America needs a morale boost like Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle's air raid on Japan, which restored America's confidence 60 years ago"
So the author is discounting the Afghanistan takeover, in an effort to suggest some kind of dramatic worldwide military initiative.
The problem here is the millions of suicide fanatics in 60 countries, who don't care who is killed, in fact the more death even of their own people, the better. So, not only does unrestricted covert military attack increase the ranks of fanatics, it also increases the attacks on the US domestically.
This is a recommendation to launch full unilateral military action even in non-allied soveriegn states, just to increase domestic morale a la the days of Doolittle, even tho' this will cause increased terrorism in the US.
Excuse me...
Someone has forgotten the bottom line here: domestic security.
If military action increases security, it is one thing.
Here we're being asked to be willing civilian targets, so that the military adventures can be proceed without restriction or the need for apparent justification or oversight.
Am I the only one that sees a problem here? |
