Now, how would YOU define the objective, and how would YOU conduct the effort?
Big question...any answer here will need to be an outline. I also have the advantage of hindsight and the disadvantage of no inside access to intel, so keep that in mind.
I would start with trying to get a better definition of terror. The attack on the USS Cole, no matter how horrendous, would not make it in my definition. A US warship in a foreign port is a target for asymmetric warfare. Institute protection measures at ship level.
The first bombing of the WTC? Yes, terror. We found those guys through intell actions and put them away, good.
Lockerbie? Terror.
London? Terror.
The attacks on all three WTC sites? We need to know more about who attacked us. The FBI says they have no evidence it was bin Laden and I think no one wants to defend the bin Laden confession tape in court. So who hit us?
I would do nothing until we get a positive ID. I have no hesitation about using military force, so long as I am certain we are shooting the right dog. I would not go before We the People and tell them we were positive it was bin Laden; I'd tell them we just don't know yet. Until we do know, we will not punish anyone.
So our intelligence agencies go to work, trying to kind out who hit us and why.
Also, who wants to hit us? Do they hate us for our freedoms? Do they have the means to hit us, or are they merely praying to Allah that we will disappear?
Do our troops in Mecca disturb them? Then move them. (This, IMO, was GWB's best move as POTUS, but with all the bellicose language, he couldn't admit to it, for fear of appearing weak by giving in to terrorist demands.
Clearing out the terrorist training grounds in Afghanistan was a good move, but we need to follow through so that our gains are not lost.
Surveillance and following money trails are good, but need to be done under the rule of law.
Securing our borders, guarding power and chemical plants, and searching containers are all good.
Treat POWs well and encourage defections. No torture for any reason.
Finally, diplomacy. What is it they want? I'm sure there are some bad men out there who just hate us and want us to die, but my guess is that the majority of terror is results and/or revenge driven. Let's not confuse the hard-liners with the salvageable. What do they want? Let's talk and find out. Maybe we can compromise, maybe not, but at least we'd know what and who we were up against and any further military action would then be justified.
In short, I would uphold the values that made us great, win back the moral high ground and gain back our friends and allies. Easy, huh?
This is so short as to be almost ridiculous, but that is the general outline. I suspect I will now need to spend the next week defending particulars. |
