Our stolen future
Newt Gingrich argues that if the next terrorist mega-attack destroys an American city, the first casualty will be the First Amendment, followed possibly by the Internet. It's important to realize that Gingrich isn't arguing that restrictions on free speech are good. He is arguing that restrictions on free speech are inevitable if millions of people are killed in another terrorist attack. The problem is how to prevent both.
And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.
He suggests the way to preventing the loss of liberty to a future attack is by re-examining how we fight the war today.
This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.
And, I further think that we should propose a Genève convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.
This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.
Commentary
Structurally Gingrich's argument sounds a lot like the Three Conjectures which argues that once terrorists acquire the ability to make WMDs no stable condition of deterrence can be achieved; and hence an annihilating nuclear exchange becomes the sole remaining option. In plain language it means that once the destruction of Western cities and the deaths of millions becomes a regularly repeatable event, necessity will compel societies to do very ugly things to put a stop to it. The solution in both Gingrich's argument and my own, is to prevent the fatal premise from eventuating in order to forestall the necessary yet unthinkable conclusion. That is, to do everything possible to defeat terrorism now rather than later, when the cost of doing so later will simply be inhumanly high. But let the situation get to the precipice and we will go over the cliff. Gingrich says the slide towards the loss of liberty has already begun in Europe, where antiterrorism laws authorize detentions of long duration without bringing formal charges. Hate speech codes have already been enacted effectively curtailing expression. And the video camera, once a device confined to sensitive installations, has begun its inexorable march toward ubiquity. Airline security procedures, bag searches, background checks -- all have now become a part of daily lives. How much worse will it get? The Left's proposal for phasing out these measures mollify terrorists to stop them from attacking us. But what if civilization's enemies have a limitless list of root causes or worse, what if they are prepared to kill without provocation?
However one chooses to regard Gingrich's argument one thing may fairly be conceded. It is important to talk about this issue now while the skies are blue and winds are soft rather than on a night of blood and darkness, stumbling through the cinders with our glass-lacerated eyes.
57 Comments:
The most sacred human law is above any court, convention or treaty. It is the Law of Survival. It is the ultimate form of justice and it is time to engage. We know who the enemy is. They told us. We know where they meet. We know a lot about them. It is time to go silent and go dark. No speeches, no threats, no lawyers, no mercy. Isolate and eliminate the radical clerics, financial supporters, politicians, tacticians, academics, theorists, and all supporters of radical Islam. We will find Islamic friends and allies to do most of the work. There is no other way to win this war."
2164th,
That's perilously close to the line there and I remember thinking the same thing about myself when I wrote 3 Conjectures. It's an dark future. I know a Muslim victim of Bali, another who guided me through Sulu, and really grand Turkish air force officer who is a prince among men. And many others. What the hell happens to people like that in the Valley of Ugly? What the heck happens to me? I live in Oz and can easily be mistaken for an Indonesian.
Trust me. I don't want this to happen. At the same time I think Newt is right when he argues all the bets will be off in a radioactive Washington DC. And yeah, the only law on the battlefield is the law of physics of which ballistics is an application. So what the heck do we do about these golden hours? We fritter them away, that's what.
The last months have convinced me that nobody can be counted on to save myself but myself. Anything else is a maybe. And that by definition means that civilization's guarantee has ever so slightly been debased. I still hope but I no longer expect.
Wretchard said, "The last months have convinced me that nobody can be counted on to save myself but myself. Anything else is a maybe. And that by definition means that civilization's guarantee has ever so slightly been debased. I still hope but I no longer expect."
"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" -- The Savior
wretchard asks of 2164th:
"What the hell happens to people like that in the Valley of Ugly?"
Precisely what you fear may happen to them, chum.
That's what makes war a tragedy.
"What the heck happens to me? I live in Oz and can easily be mistaken for an Indonesian."-W
Did you not read this part of 2164th's post?:
"We will find Islamic friends and allies to do most of the work."
and:
"There is no other way to win this war."
He's right, you know.
The only victory the US had on September 11th was due to individual sovereign citizens acting in concert for their common well-being...UA Flight 93.
The war will not be won by the government(s), it will be won by the people.Because that is the nature of the enemy that attacks us.
In the US, there are over 250 million firearms in the hands of over 65 million private citizens.
Meet the Militia.
Lead, Follow, or Make Way.
Regards;
Wretchard I don't think that 2164 was calling for the wholesale slaughter of anyone looking like a muslim...however that could be determined. To me he is calling for a simple and rational response to terror. Find the Imams that are spouting that nonsense and simply make them vanish. No muss or fuss...no courts or ACLU. Then don't stop with them but proceed apace with their students their financial backers...
Stop US Presidents from holding hand with Saudi murderers. Stop asking for permission for defending ourselves...eliminate the UN. Show the world we are serious but make sure we direct our blows, not so we make NBC News happy but so we make the enemy fear us. We have foregotten that fear drives the enemy to beat his swords to plowshares...and no enemy is immune to fear.
The Japanese perhaps the most fearless warriors of modern times learned to fear. And they learned to join the rest of us. We must spread fear before we can spread anything else. Respect is not gained by weakness but by strength.
2164th I am sorry for jumping in but you gave words to my thoughts.
More thoughts on the War against Islamic Terror
"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron—without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.
"But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to' think or not to think.'" - John Galt
What is it exactly, that we have chosen to do?
... so far?
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T.S. Eliot
Cedarford -
I have my doubts that anyone will have enough control over institutions, etc, to prevent a massive US response to a second mass casualty event on US soil.
As I posted back in August:
"Consider a hypothetical -
It's February 2007 - a heavily loaded container ship moves slowly up the Hudson.
At 12:10 pm, with nearby streets full of people heading out for lunch, a fission device hidden in one of the containers detonates.
The blast wave kills anyone outdoors within a half mile radius. The immediate death toll would run into the tens of thousands at minimum.
The associated EM pulse would render all unshielded electronics useless for miles around, effectively cutting off Manhattan and its surroundings from the outside world.
The days that follow would be gradually filled with images of unsurpassed horror as survivors begin to make contact with family, friends, etc.
Considering all the businesses that headquarter in NY (stock market, for example), it's not hard to imagine the entire country grinding to a halt.... if for no other reason than a significant loss of confidence in the ultimate stability of the nation. "Why," a trucker might reason, "should I continue to deliver the goods I carry if they (and I) might be vaporized in a second WMD attack? I should go home and stock the storm cellar with drinking water."
The President, regardless of political affiliation, will not be afforded the option of failing to respond in kind. Failure to hit back swiftly, and in overwhelming fashion, would only further erode citizens' confidence in national stability, while at the same time it would so inflame the population that the President would be forced to step down, or quite possibly (for the first time in history) be removed by a citizen coup.
The gloves would have to come off.
The only viable response to a nuke on the Hudson would be multiple nuclear strikes at targets of great importance to Islam... starting, for example, with an obliterating strike against Qom and against Medina... and possibly an arab capital. And yes, innocents would die... by the thousands. But it's the only "language" islamists understand.
The immediate result in the US would be a significant stabilization of the populace ("Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!" The President is taking it to'em!!!!! Maybe we'll come out of this ok after all!").
This should be followed up with a prime time television address, stating the following non-negotiables (in response to islamic terrorism):
1. If, from this moment until the end of time, a nuclear device (or some other WMD) is detonated in an American city, America's response will be to wipe three Arab/Islamic cities from the face of the earth, starting with Mecca, and including an as-yet untouched Arab/Persian capital.
2. Every islamic state, including Pakistan, will either declare their possession of nuclear weapons (or technology), or declare that they have none. Those that have will IMMEDIATELY dismantle everything pertaining to it, right down to the last hex nut. We will be coming to your doorstep to collect every last piece - have it ready before we arrive. If......... if a state declares it has no nuclear weapons/technology, and is later found to have lied, this will trigger the nuclear destruction of that state's capital city. This cycle will repeat itself until everything nuclear is accounted for.
3. Every islamic terrorist organization will immediately and completely disarm. Then, they shall disband, never to reconstitute. Leaders will be handed over to US military custody. Failure to comply will result in additional strikes against the country/countries that provide terrorist organizations safe harbor. Additionally, you will be invaded, deposed, and if not killed outright, brought safely to a war crimes trial as expeditiously as possible.
Will something like this happen? It's possible, I suppose.
This scenario could one day unfold before our eyes if we fail to crush this enemy NOW... but the Left opposes decisive action at every turn.
Yes, some innocents (on both sides) would be killed if we bit the bullet and performed a 21st century General Sherman across the arab world. However, I believe the number of innocents such an action would cost pales in comparison to the vastly larger number that would die if the above nuclear scenario actually plays out.
The Left, in its rabid commitment to ruining everything in which George Bush is involved, may very well open the window of opportunity for a nuke on the Hudson... and instead of suffering losses of 5 to 10k overseas to go with the 3,000 lost on 9/11, we might lose 100k in Manhattan alone... along with how many thousands upon thousands of muslim children who have nowhere to flee as a MIRV pops open high over Medina....
////////////////
As scenarios go, this seemed over the top to me, even as I wrote it... but no doubt I'd have felt similarly to the suggestion that someone would fly airliners into the towers.
We will eventually win this war... but because of the failure of our government to pull together and do what needs to be done, we won't start kicking some serious @ss until a 2nd mass casualty event is delivered to our backyard. Many more will die on both sides as a result of the dithering of our leadership.
In the aftermath, someone will say "It didn't have to be this way..." "
So we lose a city and millions of our people in a fiery blast. We will go into a frenzy of a fight mode, and work 24/7 to prepare our revenge. We will mobalize, and we will be under some form of martial law.
It won't matter which of our announced enemies actually did this to us, we will go for them all, sooner or later. Yes, I do remember Pearl Harbor, and how we all did our thing to win.
Our internal enemies, or who we think are enemies, will lose their freedom, if not their lives. When the dust settles the Islamic threat and the North Korean threat will be history as well.
Historically, the US has been through periods of martial law before, and one of the paramount virtues of our system is its ability to shed martial law and return swiftly to our usual modes of governance once the threat has been delt with completely.
We will be stupid enough to wait for the blast, I believe, unless it occurs very soon now, before Hillary or one of her ilk gets in power.
I might add that at the moment, I'm not too encouraged with the dithering of the leadership of The Right, such as it is...
Newt seems to see this thing clearly, but I suspect he's still too much damaged goods to ever hold high office again.
Garble correction: What I meant was, our hope is that Bush commits us to eradicating Islamic radicals before a blast can occur. This, of course, is not going to happen.
Buddy Larson -
Just picked up your email - thanks!
Triton
Yeh--sorry tardy, triton--that box is not used much by the Flares crew--spammy--
A Quinnipiac University poll of likely presidential contenders, released Tuesday, showed Frist ranked 18th out of 20 candidates, ahead of 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry but behind former vice president Al Gore, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former House speaker Newt Gingrich and far behind former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Frist won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll in Memphis in March, with the help of voters bused in from Middle Tennessee. That victory came despite news reports he was being investigated for sales of stock in HCA Inc., the for-profit hospital chain his brother and father founded.
Presidency in '08
Westhawk has up a thread speaking to the big snub, i.e. Maliki's insult to the people of the United States. Since Bush's wheels remain parked in Amman, he was not insulted - no surprise there.
This morning, within minutes of the climax of the Bush grovel, the international media will have a field day. This act of submission will define the Bush presidency, with Bush being portrayed as a cringing cur.
Please, spare me any talk of some master plan. There is none. After 27 years, Mr. Carter has found his equal.
In a time not so long ago, the American public would by now have been calling for the hide of Bush. That this violation of national honor goes unremarked shows the flacid state of so-called patriotism.
Men capable of ignoring the disgrace of their country are men to impotent to avenge the disgrace of their wives and daughters.
Let History and Human Nature be our guide.
History - Before WW II, Churchill was regarded as something of a crack pot. If Newt calls things correctly and has some solutions, few will complain of his past baggage.
Human Nature - not changed since recorded history, veneered but not changed. Beginning WW I German zeppelin commanders ordered to restrict bombing to industrial areas. There were instances of both sides singing Christmas Carols during Christmas. End -- Germans dropping bombs everywhere. No mercy on the battle field.
Beginning WW II -- We only bombed German industrial facilities. End -- Dresden. There is no need to discuss Japan's fate.
Currently in U.S., we have endless tolerance for those that use political correctness to "thought control" others. We have no political belly to do what needs to be done militarily. Most of the previous posters agree that we will be reactive, not proactive, in reference to a nuclear incident against us. After our third or fourth "hit", we as a people will be brutalized. At that time, we need first to cleanse ourselves, and then deal with the enemy without.
Open your eyes folks! If you haven’t noticed the new leadership that was elected by the majority has put into place their leadership which does not believe in AQ or even that there is anybody evil in the world except the US Military first and Republicans second.
Newt is major brains but very few listen to brains when fun and sun is in their eyes, because we have not suffered a repeat of 9-11 most want reality to leave and just go back to the party days of 1999 as Prince the singer with no name sung.
The US as a free nation is dieing and the cold war losers of the last century have been resurrected, are much smarter now and understand our weaknesses because they have the very tool that created us under their fundamental control, this while our social class elites have gone the way of the Euro-elitist and our political leadership chase them.
The US is being destroyed from the top and bottom and it isn’t even a foreign enemy killing us (yet!)
This may be the biggest disconnect of all time between the American people and a war government.
In the wake of 9/11, the American people did not care about democratizing the Muslim world. Or, for that matter, about the Muslim world in general. They still don’t. They want Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors crushed. As for the aftermath, they want something stable that no longer threatens our interests; they care not a wit whether Baghdad’s new government looks like Teaneck’s.
To the contrary, Bush-administration officials — notwithstanding goo-gobs of evidence that terrorists have used the freedoms of Western democracies, including our own, the better to plot mass murder — have conned themselves into believing that democracy, not decisive force, is the key to conquering this enemy.
So deeply have they gulped the Kool-Aid that, to this day, they refuse to acknowledge what is plain to see: While only a small number of the world’s billion-plus Muslims (though a far larger number than we’d like to believe) is willing to commit acts of terrorism, a substantial percentage — meaning tens of millions — supports the terrorists’ anti-West, anti-democratic agenda.
While our rhetoric blathers that we’ll never let them have a nuke, our talk begs them, pretty-please, to stop building one. And our actions all but hand them one. If all that makes you wonder who’s the superpower, what do you suppose they’re thinking?
That’s talking with an enemy that has us pretty well pegged, while we stubbornly resist even thinking about what motivates him. We wouldn’t want to question his ideology. After all, what would CAIR say?
The democracy project tells Islamists that we don’t understand them — or care to try understanding them. The “let’s talk” gambit confirms that we’re not just studiously ignorant; we’re ripe for the taking.
For our own sake, we need to respect the enemy. That means grasping that he’s implacable, that he means us only harm, and that he must be subdued, not appeased. Negotiating with such evil is always a mistake, for any accommodation with evil is, by definition, evil.
Rejecting the democracy project is about respecting the enemy. Declining to talk to the enemy is about respecting ourselves.
— Andrew C. McCarthy
> Isolate and eliminate the radical clerics, financial supporters, politicians, tacticians, academics, theorists, and all supporters of radical Islam.
This is not possible. We have to win hearts and minds or we fail. The assumption seems to be that there are a specific number of dangerous Islamists, say 12,374 of them. As soon as we kill all 12,374, then the threat is gone forever.
That is not the way it works. In fact if the US uses brutal tactics, the backlash is likely to create many, many more dangerous Islamists. That is one of bin Laden's recruiting tactics, to point to what he claims is US brutality.
Imagine if we tried to win the Cold War by killing every communist on earth.
dune runner is right. the enemy is adapting. i dont believe either that they will be stupid enough (again) to unit us with a WMD attack now. i get the sense they have inventoried and acknowledge that the "return of the Mahdi" will happen only at the perfect (a word ahmedinajad likes to use a lot)time and now is not it. I think the best way to handle it right now is to undertake the most massive Spec. ops we have ever done. that plane that recently crashed in iran carrying all those revolutionary guards, increase that exponentially.
Not to worry, there is no terrorist threat. It's all a huge overstatement in order to garner political capital for the neocons.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501-p0/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat.html
My guess that if there is an attack, the Dems will put Mueller on a 9/11 Commission type panel to determine why we let it happen.
Yes I came to the same conclusion some time ago. Why hit us again when you are getting our retreat and surrender so easily. But what may save us is the desire to kill us in spectacular fashion since we need to be awakened again. It might be possible that they would make the ulitimate mistake and hit Wash DC and by doing so eliminate the last buffer between them and their 72 virgins. I have come to believe that among Bush's goals on 9/12 was to moderate our blood lust for Islam. You know calm us down...mollify our desire for revenge...revenge is such an unchristian thing.
It seems to me that instead of thinking about how it is going to affect our constitutional rights when they drop a nuke on us, we should be thinking of how we are going to muster the national will to defeat them when they don't.
That is the most important question because it is just possible that instead of losing their heads and attacking us they will be patient.
From an article where I was a bit more awake.
Put simply if we are fighting Al Qaeda to prevent them from forcing their way of life upon us how do we stand allies who already accomplish either all or much of that crime against their own people? Are we merely fighting a method or an end state? Is it only the fact that Al Qaeda engages in wholesale murder that causes us to reject their demands or do we reject their view of the world? Could we accept their view of the world if they did not engage in murder to achieve it?
We are at war with those in Islam who believe it is their duty to convert by sword or word the entire world. We are at war with the idea that any religion can take the place of a government by the people where the rights of the individual are guaranteed by law and that is understood to be inviolable by any religion. Perhaps Islam can stand beside Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism in our world but can it accept that all of them stand to the side of any government which guards against the depredations of any single religion declaring it has the right to guide in every detail?.
Firing anyone in the US Government that believes this is the way to win wars would be a terrific start to ending our slide into horror.
That is not the way it works. In fact if the US uses brutal tactics, the backlash is likely to create many, many more dangerous Islamists. That is one of bin Laden's recruiting tactics, to point to what he claims is US brutality.
Imagine if we tried to win the Cold War by killing every communist on earth.
We didn't have to kill all of them we just had to make them understand that we would if they tried to kill us. Their philsophy was corrupt enough that their people simply did't believe in communism. Put simply there weren't that many hardcore communists that we had to "kill all of them".
In Japan we fought a much more fanatical and dedicated enemy and killing them did in fact produce more of them for a time. Then we got ahead of the curve and it started reducing their numbers either through outright death or simply accepting that believing in their cause was dumb. Eventually we killed enough of them that they came to believe we would not stop unless they did.
In Indonesia in 2003 56% of the people believed that Bin Laden was a hero. This was before we attacked Iraq and after we had "liberated" Afghanistan and after we had suffered the most horrific terrorist attack in history. Islam has a problem with us.
Among that 56% a vast majority would not want to be a suicide bomber...but perhaps they donate money to Al Qaeda, perhaps they would hide bombers, maybe they would not call the authorities if they saw something suspecious. They do not respect us and bowing and scraping will not gain their respect.
But I bet that if we get attacked again and millions die we will gain their respect. Because at that time the firebombing of Japan will look like a walk in the park compared to the woe and misery that will befall much of the Islamic world. And any US Politicians unwilling to spread woe and misery will be dragged out of town on a rail.
I don't buy the theory that the US can be secretly nuked, that terrorists could sneak nukes in here and we would never discover who did it. There are radiation trails all over from the spy who just died.
I also don't buy the fear theory, that we kill a bunch of people so the rest of the world govels and does whatever we say. Most people are not that weak. But lets say both theories were possible. That slaughter still wouldn't protect the US because all it would take was a few terrorist who weren't scared to deliver the nukes. Either we would have to kill or scare absolutely 100% or that approach fails.
Also if it were true that we could get secretly nuked, then why didn't the Soviet Union do it during the Cold War? And right now there is no reason that only Islamists would target the US. Russia was our mortal enemy and lots of people there still hate us. China is an emerging power and they see us as the #1 threat to them.
The reality is that we need to deter nukes the way we successfully have done it for decades. That's with a combination of mutual assured destruction, propaganda war, diplomacy, alliances, covert and special forces fighting, and conventional war.
Boy, some folks don't see a winning hand when it stares them in the face...
Has anyone noted that terrorism has evolved into Arab and Muslims killing OTHER Arabs and Muslims?
They're so busy killing each other that there is precious little energy or resources left for any of 'em to do more than babble about killing Americans...and, as always, the Jooooos.
THAT, friends, is the REAL aim of the GWOT.
The "democratization" bit is ancillary.
It would be groovy if those good folks could conduct their affairs in a peaceful and democratic fashion, but if not, who really GAS?
As long as they ain't killing US, see?
Now, as for killing us, Mao once wrote that the "People's Army is like the fish in the sea of the People." (or W2TE)
True enough.
But you don't have any "fish" if someone removes the "sea".
And domestically speaking, at least in America, where the citizenry that wishes to be is armed, such a notion is very "do-able".
Not a pretty picture, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that it couldn't happen.
The Arabs and Muslims among us sure aren't fooled.
Poor bastards, (the good ones..."the normal Alis"), imagine going through your day knowing that there are countless deer rifles and duck guns aimed at you and your family.
Enough to make a fella uncommonly well-mannered and well-behaved.
That's REAL "Homeland Security", lads.
Regards;
The Soviets, w.w., knew we strike them back, in the event of a "secret nuke".
Over 300 metric tons of cocaine and an untold amount of pot enter the country annually, without sanction from the Federals. Anyone with the desire and capacity could transport multiple 200 lb nuclear devices into the US.
Would we "know" who did it?
What difference would it make, the specific source of the devices?
You are looking at a nuclear or biological attack as a "criminal action" where only those responsible would pay a price. Which is not what War is about. Which is why War should be avoided, if possible.
Who provided the Anthrax in those post 9-11 incidents? How do you trace biological agents "back to their source"? If it is possible why was it not done.
The Russian spy death case exemplifies the problem of "sourcing". Did a freelancer steal the Polonium or was there State sponsorship?
And by what State?
What is the signature on the Polonium, if it is so easy to distinguish?
> The Soviets, w.w., knew we strike them back, in the event of a "secret nuke".
Any nation who harbors terrorists today knows the same thing, so it is the same deterrance.
If we could have tracked nuclear terrorist back to the Soviet Union back then, then we could track them today.
Wu Wei said:
"In fact if the US uses brutal tactics, the backlash is likely to create many, many more dangerous Islamists. That is one of bin Laden's recruiting tactics, to point to what he claims is US brutality."
How can we know what sort of backlash our brutal tactics would provoke? We haven't even started to use any yet. This whole thread seems to be about whether it's time to consider starting with them. The key part of your statement is "what he CLAIMS". What evil deed of ours provoked the embassy bombings in the 90s or the Cole attack in 2000? What did we do in response? It wasn't very "brutal" in any case, I don't think.
I find myself (almost against my will) beginning to agree that we may have to do things that up until now have been unthinkable. We've tried the touchy-feely stuff for a long time, and it doesn't seem very effective so far.
The US was just finally getting good and ramped up for a fight when WWII ended. Nobody in history, including us, has any idea what atrocities this country might be capable of if we get up a good head of steam and have solid reasons.
I think we should probably do what's necessary to deny ourselves those reasons. I don't want to think about what the world would look like afterward if the US decided that we had to unleash everything we've got.
joe buzz:
"Considering this interpretation of the letter the discussion is timely as is usually the case here at TBC."
And what do you wager me that, for all Ahmenidjad's preachifyin', his first target for his new toy will be Riyadh?
Making anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric, in the Arab world's politics, is akin to Congress labeling all spending bills as "Security", "Protection", or "Reform".
Often just a word game so that no-one looks too closely at the boxcar-lots of swag being legislated away and into backer's coffers.
Ahmenidjad may be screaming and pointing at Israel and the USA from his plutonium "hot tub", but you can bet your sweet bippie that he's programming his GPS for the House of Saud.
Regards;
Mannning said, "Historically, the US has been through periods of martial law before, and one of the paramount virtues of our system is its ability to shed martial law and return swiftly to our usual modes of governance once the threat has been delt with completely."
Only the territory of Hawaii in World War II, various states occupied in the civil war, and a number of individual cities have been under martial law, but never the US as a whole.
Begin by declaring Islam a competitive form of GOVERNMENT, which our Constitution prohibits. Quit regarding it as a religion; period.
Remove all Muslim proselytizers from our prisons, schools and universities. Just make it illegal.
Deport all non-citizen Muslims post haste.
Then, as 2164th indicated, go silent & go dark in the ME. Something we should have done immediately after 911.
oui oui:
"The Democrat controlled 110th Congress will likely “establish a civil-liberties board to protect the public against intelligence agencies expanding their reach.”"
Ahhh, true to form for the Dem leadership.
The government threatens our civil liberties?
So the "cure" is MORE of the "disease".
Give 'em more government.
Allah is in his heaven and all is right with the world.
Regards;
wretchard, after reading your first line:
"Newt Gingrich argues that if the next terrorist mega-attack destroys an American city"
my immediate thought was *sigh* here we go with the fear mongering. The implication in that line, by using "the next terrorist mega-attack", is that they've already done a mega-attack and it is only a matter of time until a city is taken out. That is quite the leap from the attacks have occurred to date.
But you do realize this in the body of your post, that it is best to contemplate it now then after (which again presupposes that it will happen). Which brings me to fear, terror.
Yes the thought of "what if's" can be nightmarish but we've lived with "what if's" for a long time and acting as if every possiblity were going to happen does not make for a very good life. If you really believe that it is inevitable that it will happen why aren't you building yourself a bomb shelter with air purification systems and just basically never leaving? Because it isn't really worth it. You gotta live, and you gotta live with your fear of "what if". Sure we can and should contemplate the "what if's" but to base our actions, especially when it comes to all that is involved in war fighting, incarceration ect. based on our fear of a "what if" is not rational behavior. We'll be locking most everyone up, or just killing them, because they 'might' do us harm.
Instead we need to be congnizant of the possiblilites, 'wargame' them if you will, but give up our 'freedom' (isn't that what makes America great?) based on our fear of 'what if's' is not worth it. Live life, love life, the sky may be falling, or it may not.
enscout said: "Then, as 2164th indicated, go silent & go dark in the ME."
'Going silent' would have to mean that US bureaucrats would stop slipping operational details to the New York Times, and the NYT would stop printing them. Not going to happen! At least, not until we have some summary executions of treasonous bureaucrats, and military censorship of the NYT & CNN. Make Islamists afraid of the US? Hell, the US government can't even put fear into its own employees!
The collective wisdom here seems to be that the US will flounder unless/until there is another attack on the Continental US; and that the Islamists are now too smart to provide that provocation.
I can't shake the thought that, given the highly undesireable way the cookie has crumbled, the smartest strategy now for the US would be to feign weakness (with plentiful help from useful idiots within the US in politics & the media who would not realize that they were being played by BOTH sides). Perhaps only that weakness can encourage the Islamists to make their fatal provocation. A danger, of course, is that the weakness is real, not simply feigned.
That strategy would also let the Enemy Within self-identify, which would provide the justification for rounding them up after the Islamists big provocation.
This is not a great strategy, but given everything else that has happened, it may be the most practical remaining approach.
ash:
Great sentiments. However, we must connect some dots. Islamic terrorists have repeatedly attacked us and our interests whenever and wherever they were allowed an opportunity. They have stated many times over that it is their wish to see us converted to their suicidal worldview or killed. They are on the threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons and have already demonstrated an uncanny ability to use our open society to creatively attack us with impunity. They are plotting our destruction as we plan our defense.
We all, I have no doubt, intend to live this life as best we know how. But to do nothing about the imminent threat these enemies pose is irresponsible.
enscout, I agree, the devil is in the details and that revolves around the particulars of what we should do. I have argued that the Iraq invasion and occupation was a poorly considered response to terrorist attacks, I believe escalating the Iraq confilict is would also be a poor choice and counterproductive in our fight against terrorism. Similarily attacking Iran would be counterproductive in this fight.
Wiretapping is one productive method of countering the threat (judicial oversight is required though). Addressing our oil consumption would be another. There are many options short of bombing, invading and occupying places.
Kinuachdrach:
"'Going silent' would have to mean that US bureaucrats would stop slipping operational details to the New York Times, and the NYT would stop printing them."
I don't really think that 2164th was talking about government action.
Why do you?
"We know who the enemy is. They told us. We know where they meet. We know a lot about them. It is time to go silent and go dark. No speeches, no threats, no lawyers, no mercy."
If you cling to the government for your freedom, you'd better see your haberdasher for your new keffiyeh and know more than a few words of Arabic.
"Isolate and eliminate the radical clerics, financial supporters, politicians, tacticians, academics, theorists, and all supporters of radical Islam."
Regards;
ash: You said: "There are many options short of bombing, invading and occupying places."
Indeed. This, I think, is what Gingrich refers to when he suggests rolling back some of our "assumed" rights, freedoms, etc. It shouldn't take another strike but clearly, given the politcal climate here as demonstrated in the recent election results, we - collectively - are not ready to make those concessions.
The problem, clearly, is that, domestically, we don't have leaders with the courage to implement measures to make a difference in the struggle. They don't get elected or they get tossed out of Congress due to ACLU/Pelosi types, our la-la land friends on the left and the MSM.
If the BC Archives are available from '03 go back, bilgeman, and read how those exact sentiments are stated often, your's is an echo of past discussions.
The Golden Chain, the Imams, the Financiers ...
Even "Going Native"
Ignored then, ignored now.
Get on board the Peace Train.
Wu Wei said, "If we could have tracked nuclear terrorist back to the Soviet Union back then, then we could track them today."
They've already tracked the nuclear assassination back to planes which traveled between London and Moscow, but nothing more will come of it than a frown, possibly a little scorn, but definitely not a shunning.
Wretchard's comments left out a key point. Most of us are only one generation away from a United States that cheered the use of fire bombing and nuking Japan. Our parents approved the fire bombing of Dresden. To get to that layer again is not a big scratch.
If the scenarios proposed by Wretchard or Gringrich come about I see a response that will take a century or more to recover from.
Because of the current political situation in the U.S. I do not think we can do anything now but stockpile emergency equipment and lead lined coffins.
I don't see a nuke in our cities - at first.
I see destruction of Abqaiq and Ras Turna in KSA and other targets of opportunity in the Middle East.
As far as al-Q is concerned, if the global economy collapses, that's good, we're all infidels anyway and deserve it. If the KSA collapses, that's better, so their guys control the oil.
al-Q learned the hard way that we still - at least when we temporarily have the will - can bring the pain when we get pissed off.
They know it's in their long-term interest to screw with the systems that supply our economy first.
As Katrina and last summer's oil hyping (no thanks to speculators shows), if you want to knock out the Great Satan, deny him the oil to fuel his fire.
If al-Q can get gas to $10/gal in the USA, our country will start to eat itself as the economy violently retracts.
If the global price for a barrel of oil is $300, and that can be sustained for six to eight months, every modern economy on earth will stop - at least temporarily.
The savage elements in the cities will begin their rampaging for food, supplies, drugs and guns. Civil unrest will be the phrase of the day.
THEN you hit our financial centers with a bug or nuke.
Now that will be a party.
Woman Catholic/Terrisita said...
Wretchard said, "The last months have convinced me that nobody can be counted on to save myself but myself. Anything else is a maybe. And that by definition means that civilization's guarantee has ever so slightly been debased. I still hope but I no longer expect."
"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" -- The Savior
///////////////////////////
Matthew 6:27-29 (King James Version)
27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
//////////////////
Matthew 6:27-29 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[a]?
28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.
Br'er D-Day said, "If al-Q can get gas to $10/gal in the USA, our country will start to eat itself as the economy violently retracts."
Ah, but as soon as gas gets up to a sustained $4-$5 a gallon level it becomes cheaper to burn vegetable oil or liquefied coal.
"Lilies of the Field": Homer Smith is an itinerant handyman/jack-of-all trades who stops at a farm in the Arizona desert to replenish his water supply. He is persuaded to do a small roofing repair and stays overnight, believing that he will be paid in the morning. (snip)
Check it out for a reminder why early 60s liberalism had, in the peoples' mind, no connection to Big Brother.
Br'er D-Day said, "If the global price for a barrel of oil is $300, and that can be sustained for six to eight months, every modern economy on earth will stop - at least temporarily."
I suppose when the world economy suddenly stops, the oil sheiks will be puzzled why suddenly no one is paying $300 for their oil anymore, and might even think about selling it for less.
Drive By Blogger said...
Ah, but as soon as gas gets up to a sustained $4-$5 a gallon level it becomes cheaper to burn vegetable oil or liquefied coal.
In theory, yes. The US guzzles 25 million bpd with our refineries running near capacity today.
If you can build the infrastructure to produce ethanol and Fischer-Tropsch coal syngas at the same rate that we currently produce refined gasoline for $4-$5 a gallon, lots of luck to you.
The reality is, we won't have the infrastructure in place until we have a near meltdown on the petro front. The grip of the enviros on the fedgov must be broken, and can only be broken when middle America is forced to choose between spotted owls and the American Lifestyle.
The Air Force just flew a B-52 on syngas, (www.syntroleum.com) and it came to about $30/gal. There's still work to be done before we just switch it over in the US.
Drive By Blogger said...
I suppose when the world economy suddenly stops, the oil sheiks will be puzzled why suddenly no one is paying $300 for their oil anymore, and might even think about selling it for less.
Unless said sheiks aren't in control any more. al-Q has made it no secret that it wants the current crop of the house of Saud to be overthrown and its oil to belong to the Ummah.
Furthermore, guys who have lived in caves and eaten ratmeat for years won't sweat the loss of revenue while the Great Satan collapses. Self-sacrifice is one of their strengths. If they lose 1/3 of the Ummah in the process, they don't care as long as InfidelLand implodes in the process.
Any nation who harbors terrorists today knows the same thing, so it is the same deterrance.
If we could have tracked nuclear terrorist back to the Soviet Union back then, then we could track them today.
You are not serious eh? After the foolishness we went through trying to link Saddam to terrorism. The cowards in the Democratic and Republican parties who look for any reason to not cut off the gravy trains of ME Sheiks who spread money like water will never allow them to be taken to account.
Saddam was absolutely intricately locked into world wide terror. He used it as a tool and understood its value against a people like us so afraid of our power.
need to keep two things in mind; 1) the BTU efficiency of oil may never be beat (with that constellation of economic consequences, beginning with the pace of changeover, leading the question, "what about the interim?"), and 2), related to the observations re the jihadis above, the economics of non-renewable resources present these jihadis with a continuum that reads "sell it all now cheap, or sell it all later dear". Imagine yourself with a hundred gold bars. You need to sell only a few at a time to live, and the price goes up the fewer you sell, and goes down the more you sell.
So, what's the rush? Especially if you have 'century-sight', and can hurt your enemy badly by extorting?
Just two things to keep in mind, before popping off facile verbal solutions to the mess.
The idea that if we lose our dependence on oil everything will get better is laughable. The Islamists don't hate us because we use their oil they hate us because we exist. If you are saying that we wouldn't have any interest in the Middle East anymore without the oil dependency then you are advocating a policy of letting the crocidile eat you last. So we let Israel be bombed into extinction, peachy, then we let Europe get overun....then what?
We fight now. This far and no farther...we can live in peace as long as they decide to love their children as much as we love ours. But I will sacrifice untold numbers of them to save one of my children. I have done a little mental exercise and there is no number of Islamists dead that I reach where I say that I would rather sacrifice one of my children than one more of them.
This far, no farther, and if it takes me doing it then fine, show me the button. I will live with my shame to allow my children to live...simple as that!
Assuming some sort of rationality in their style of attack ignores that they are driven by irrational hatred.
Their hatreds are only irrational from a Western perspective. Their hatreds are perfectly rational in their own tribal society and culture.
I remember reading an interview with a US sergeant a couple years ago. He said that he understood the Iraqi mentality completely. It was the same as the mentality of gang members he knew from the projects he grew up in in Chicago.
If you took someone like Saddam Hussein or his two sons and placed them into American culture and they acted in the US as they had acted in Iraq they would be put into an insane asylum or given the electric chair. They could be considered clinically insane by our standards. Yet they were the rulers of a pretty big country and they still have many supporters there.
One of the disadvantages that the enemy has in this war is that he doesn't understand us very well. We need to make sure that we understand him well.
Br'er D-Day said, "Furthermore, guys who have lived in caves and eaten ratmeat for years won't sweat the loss of revenue while the Great Satan collapses."
Considering the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the aircraft carriers in the Gulf, and the trillions of dollars of wealth the US can liquidate to bid for fungible oil, I would bank on the oil sheiks folding first.
As regards MAD the Soviets didn't/don't worship death. IOW, they still wanted something left to rule.
As regards a nuclear attack anywhere, the minute we go below a discernable inventory we suddenly have two new players with more clout. Something about let those two duke it out and take over the winner. We had better be in the manufacturing mode when that happens.
utopia parkway wrote: One of the disadvantages that the enemy has in this war is that he doesn't understand us very well. We need to make sure that we understand him well.
Does he not understand us well enough? What capabilities does our side have that he has not already exploited?
Our obsession with universalism, of upholding human rights and morality such that we are too afraid to inflict necessary collateral damage in order to get to these minions - the terrorist employs human shields, because to them sacrifice is natural and necessary in their objective to bring down the Western infidels.
Our supposedly efficient, lethal conventional fighting forces on the battlefield - that had indeed translated into easy military victories in the optimistic heyday of the aftermath of the Iraqi war. But the terrorists have exploited our inability to cope with asymmetrical warfare - decentralised, independent militias and cell groups that answer to nobody but know exactly how to inflict serious harm on our troops.
And if we ever corner them with their backs to the wall via conventional forces, don't think they'll willingly surrender or even simply blow themselves up - the firefights with Hezbollah surprised even the most battle-hardened commanders on the field.
As dune runner suggested, our enemy is not this suicide bomber, but the devious, diabolical masterminds - the Iranian mullahs and their goal of establishing a Shia Crescent/Caliphate, instigating a global jihad against their fellow Sunnis as well as ultimately annihilating every single trace of Israel and the Western world. Whomever they cannot convert, they kill.
Ask yourself this question: when have we seen supposedly "noble" leaders like Nasrallah or Meshaal strap on suicide vests or even pick up a weapon to fight beside their zealous underlings? If you knew of Zarqawi's weapons-handling skills (or lack of it thereof), you might see why. But the fact is that we should be hunting these men down, for they are the ones propagating a seemingly inclusive, nihilistic, glorified ideology of death and martyrdom - not only that but surreptitiously self-serving and elitist as well - that allows them to wage war on their enemies without getting blood on their hands.
More so than ever, the enemy has exploited our ignorance in identifying and confronting our adversary. Our reluctance to muster the will necessary to deal with this threat decisively has even spawned internal foes such as the MSM who advocate defeatism and surrender - tragically enough, the terrorists are adequately savvy in manipulating and broadcasting propagandistic rhetoric that blames us for all the carnage and mindless violence they have single-handedly perpetuated.
The worst thing is, the MSM doesn't even know it's being exploited. And a significant proportion of the public choose to accept such news passively without understanding just how potent, rational and intellectually ingenious our adversaries are.
Their intentions are as clear as crystal. What we have failed to do is to articulate ours.
pierre legrand wrote: The idea that if we lose our dependence on oil everything will get better is laughable.
Agreed. Note that the main exporters of oil are countries whom we have had less-than-cordial relations with. Russia. Iran. The Saudis are probably the only exception, but only because they know we can only depend on them, and our money is financing their Wahhabist terrorist cells everywhere in the region and beyond.
Even if we end our dependence on oil and switch to alternative sources, these countries are simply going to find new patrons, which are by no means lacking.
The emergence of these new patrons signal new challenges to our sovereignty. China, for example, invests in Africa, Sudan even - neutralising any sanctions the international community may have imposed. Our disengagement will prove to be deleterious as Iran and Russia would have even more oil-induced allies on its side to engage in obstructionism against us.
In truth, this has already begun to take place, and we can no longer blame our dependency on oil as an excuse for our intransigence in dealing with our foes.
Paul said, "Could a series of suicide bombers in American shopping centers, schools, etc. destroy American support for Israel and turn America isolationist (get the US out of the Middle East and other Moslem lands)?"
No, Americans are fearless in a tussle, but one more instance of Israel spying on us, ala Jonathan Pollard, and we'll take away their allowance.
No one said the Palmer Raids were inneffective.
Let's see now. Islamic militiants destroy American cities... Millions of people killed... People in the heartland are asked to aid and reconstruct.
Let's see it this way. Islamic militiants destroy American cities, causing a political realignment in the United States. Democrats are the big losers and both States and the Democratic party lose representation in Washington!
Okay, a silver lining in every storm cloud. Since it is inevitable, lets look at the bright side (no nuclear pun intended).
Post a Comment
<< Home