HDPM
10-22-2003, 12:31 PM
In case Ashcroft is monitoring us, Rumsfeld said this, not me. web page (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-22-defense-memo-usat_x.htm)
Finally somebody is asking the right questions. The war against terrorism contains an inherent paradox that is highlighted by the memo. And that is highlighted by the cost benefit analysis. We have spent billions to try to go after certain people because of a cheap but effective operation they pulled on us. But nothing we have done will really prevent another such operation. When you think about it from Al Quaeda's perspective, the attack on us was an astounding success. They spent a little money and lost a relatively small number of "martyrs." They caused great damage to our economy and now have us fighting wars that are sapping our resources. They really did quite a lot to change how our country goes about things and how strong we are economically and militarily. Talk about a force multiplier. The opposition to the war may lead to an attitude which prevents future similar operations and an attitude of excessive passivity. Our war against the Taliban was successful, but we can't hold the ground, so Taliban-like groups will come back and AlQaeda will have a safe haven again. The terrorist attack also caused us to topple Saddam's regime, which may be something the terrorists want in the long run. Saddam was horrible of course, but he was a secular dictator and kept the religious whackos at bay. When Iraq is sufficiently chaotic, the religious nuts and terrorists will fill the void. Unless we have the stomach to finish the operation and do what is necessary. I doubt we do.
Now, this is not meant as simple criticism of the Bush administration. They were and are faced with complicated problems that are not subject to simple answers IMO. They have embarked on strategies that probably won't work as intended, but it is not clear there is a strategy that would work. I think we need a very long term coherent strategy to deal with the problem. I think there are aspects of it we should implement now that don't cost much. The overall strategy must call for educating citizens on how to deal with terrorism. We must have the stomach to continue on after an attack. We can't let the terrorists affect what we do. No matter what happens we must keep the economy going, show up to work, be productive, etc.... We must also figure out a way to take all the money away from the terrorists. This means energy independence, and perhaps taking away the oil from those countries. I do not understand why the Bush administration won't say the war is about oil and won't take away oil. We toppled a sovereign nation, why are we squeamish about plundering the assets of that country. We also have to keep fighting the cultural war. We must secularize the world. We should export tv's computers, porn, music, books, etc... to the Middle East. The terrorists correctly perceive that our culture poses a threat to theirs. In the long run we will win, UNLESS we give up our country fighting these idiots. Like by ruining air travel or passing laws that strip us of our freedoms to gain an illusory measure of security.
The most radical strategy is to do nothing or better yet, become more like what the terrorists hate. I do not know that such a strategy would work or is the best strategy. But I would wager there are aspects of it that should be examined and used.
Again, Rumsfeld asked, not me. I wouldn't want to be considered unpatriotic or anything myself. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Finally somebody is asking the right questions. The war against terrorism contains an inherent paradox that is highlighted by the memo. And that is highlighted by the cost benefit analysis. We have spent billions to try to go after certain people because of a cheap but effective operation they pulled on us. But nothing we have done will really prevent another such operation. When you think about it from Al Quaeda's perspective, the attack on us was an astounding success. They spent a little money and lost a relatively small number of "martyrs." They caused great damage to our economy and now have us fighting wars that are sapping our resources. They really did quite a lot to change how our country goes about things and how strong we are economically and militarily. Talk about a force multiplier. The opposition to the war may lead to an attitude which prevents future similar operations and an attitude of excessive passivity. Our war against the Taliban was successful, but we can't hold the ground, so Taliban-like groups will come back and AlQaeda will have a safe haven again. The terrorist attack also caused us to topple Saddam's regime, which may be something the terrorists want in the long run. Saddam was horrible of course, but he was a secular dictator and kept the religious whackos at bay. When Iraq is sufficiently chaotic, the religious nuts and terrorists will fill the void. Unless we have the stomach to finish the operation and do what is necessary. I doubt we do.
Now, this is not meant as simple criticism of the Bush administration. They were and are faced with complicated problems that are not subject to simple answers IMO. They have embarked on strategies that probably won't work as intended, but it is not clear there is a strategy that would work. I think we need a very long term coherent strategy to deal with the problem. I think there are aspects of it we should implement now that don't cost much. The overall strategy must call for educating citizens on how to deal with terrorism. We must have the stomach to continue on after an attack. We can't let the terrorists affect what we do. No matter what happens we must keep the economy going, show up to work, be productive, etc.... We must also figure out a way to take all the money away from the terrorists. This means energy independence, and perhaps taking away the oil from those countries. I do not understand why the Bush administration won't say the war is about oil and won't take away oil. We toppled a sovereign nation, why are we squeamish about plundering the assets of that country. We also have to keep fighting the cultural war. We must secularize the world. We should export tv's computers, porn, music, books, etc... to the Middle East. The terrorists correctly perceive that our culture poses a threat to theirs. In the long run we will win, UNLESS we give up our country fighting these idiots. Like by ruining air travel or passing laws that strip us of our freedoms to gain an illusory measure of security.
The most radical strategy is to do nothing or better yet, become more like what the terrorists hate. I do not know that such a strategy would work or is the best strategy. But I would wager there are aspects of it that should be examined and used.
Again, Rumsfeld asked, not me. I wouldn't want to be considered unpatriotic or anything myself. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif