Now that you have fanned the flames... and with the full knowledge that our intelligence capabilities are, shall we say, somewhat spotty... it falls to you to choose our best option:
Ahh...my picayune talents, such as they are, or are not, lie not in solutions or grand plans nor in big thinking, but in pointing fingers at problems, finding inconsistencies, braying at irony, and in delivering the random pinprick to the pompous.
I leave the choosing of options to others since the ones I generally favor are far too outrageous for serious consideration. My thinking is so out-of-the-box, I sometimes too question whether some sort of mania has not taken hold. So please take this in the somewhat mock serious tone in which it is offered.
But since you asked....I shall reply.
Your options: none of them give me much hope. We have to use our advantages, not lead with our chin. More on how to do this below--you won't like it, and few here will.
My options:
Since militant Islamism is a fantasy ideology, per Harris' brilliant article Nadine was kind enough to link, one option is to fight fantasy with fantasy.
Though I understand that psychologists and psychiatrists are trained never to indulge a patient's insane fantasies [never hooooot at a patient who is convinced that humans are really owls], where there is no doctor/patient relationship perhaps fighting fire with fire is not a bad idea. For example: let it be known that henceforth all American bombs and bullets are dipped in pig fat, ensuring no 72 dark eyed virgins for the fallen Islamist terrorist.
I'd also act as crazily as they do, but using the full panoply of our power, i.e., let it be known as a matter of national policy that if a nuke or dirty nuke ever hits NYC or DC, there will be Yankee nukes dropped on Mecca, Medinah, Riyadh, Islamabad, Damascus, Teheran, and Cairo within 30 minutes of the first explosion, the exact identity of the culprit being irrelevant. Make the threat known globally ahead of time so that any foreigners who are caught in these cities are fully aware of what could happen to them as a result of their choice to reside in these cities.
Militant Islamism is an increasingly virulent cancer on the health of the globe. It needs to be extirpated. If it ever uses nukes, treat it like other cancers are treated--radiologically.
I'm sure we can somehow find ways of eliminating the present proliferators. I wouldn't be too choosy about who they are--if they are suspect, eliminate them. I'd rather err on the side of caution than be forced as a result of misplaced prudence to demolish many centers of Islamic population.
Yes, A.K., Gul, and their ilk would have been pushing up daisies long ago if I were running things.
We are unnecessarily bound by our legalistic notions of fair play. Why should this be the case when their avowed, divinely-inspired goal, evidenced by the search for nukes, is to destroy as much of us and our culture as they can? Why should we use the Marquis of Queensbery's rules when our opponents use zip guns, switchblades, brass knuckles, and shivs?
If it would have been up to me, the immediate post-9/11 message delivered publicly to all Muslim leaders would have been this one: rein in the nuts, take them out of commission now, and make sure you stop the nuclear proliferation and mass terrorism. If you don't and we suffer a nuclear catastrophe, entire Islamic capitals will disappear, demolished by nukes dipped in pig lard.
I think this would have gotten their attention. How to make such a threat credible, however, is the essence of the problem. Given our previous actions, it would be perfectly rational for Muslim leaders to disbelieve the kind of message I think should have been sent. I think Iraq was a good start in this regard.
If a non-nuclear incident of 9/11 proportions happens again, I would not use nukes. Instead, the publicly delivered threat, delivered before non-nuclear terrorism occurs, would be that important Islamic symbols would be destroyed by cruise missiles, starting with their holy places at Mecca and Medinah. Let them see if Allah can stop that kind of response.
If they want to get crazy, let's drastically change the rules of the game, let's really get crazy. Naturally, we have a lot more weapons, so perhaps a bit of rationality might actually set in.
The nuts think that Allah favors them, that he makes them invincible. This fantasy needs to be irrevocably destroyed, made meaningless. We cannot do so unilaterally. However, if we use their leaders as cat's paws in the manner I outline, perhaps there is hope.
The thinking would be that after a few incidents, our credibility would go up and terrorism would go down as Islamic leaders take back their religion and eliminate or temper the Islamists.
Sure, a lot of innocents would suffer. But isn't that what happened on 9/11?
C2@puttingHermanKahntoshame_tongueonlypartiallyincheek.com |
