Thursday, November 08, 2007

The World of September 11

The Federation of American Scientists has acquired documents which imply that the national nuclear targeting plan was altered to include regional targets after the September 11 attacks.



Rumors about such options have existed for years, but the document is the first authoritative evidence that fear of weapons of mass destruction attacks from outside Russia and China caused the Bush administration to broaden U.S. nuclear targeting policy by ordering the military to prepare a series of new options for nuclear strikes against regional proliferators. ...

The names of the "regional states" were also withheld, but three images used to illustrate the planning were released, and they leave little doubt who the regional states are... Five of these were listed in the NPR as examples of countries that were "immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies...setting requirements for nuclear strike capabilities": Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria.

Iraq presumably disappeared from the war plan again after U.S. forces invaded the country in March 2003 - only three weeks after OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 went into effect - and discovered that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Libya presumably disappeared after December 2003, when President Muammar Gaddafi declared that he was giving up efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The nuclear strike plans against Iran, North Korea and Syria, however, presumably were carried forward into the next OPLAN 8044 Revision 05 from October 2004, a plan that was still in effect as recently as July 2007.

These documents hint at what may have been the dominant thinking of the time, influenced by the idea that terrorism was always at heart going to be "state sponsored terrorism". That the list has shrunk is good news, though it is an indirect indictment of how good intelligence on the subject was at the time. There is one notable omission from the list, assuming Iran, North Korea and Syria are still on the planning lists. And that is Pakistan, which remains a nominal US ally.

It's a glimpse into how much better -- and worse -- things are six years later. In the time since September 11, a number of alternative ways have been found to combat terrorism short of a total reliance on nuclear deterrence. Many of these methods are imperfect. There are probably still nuclear contingency plans in effect. But the development of conventional methods of meeting the terrorist threat suggests our understanding of the threat has becoming deeper and our capabilities more sophisticated.

The bad news is that novel threats emerge all the time. The situation in Pakistan, for example, is one that could not have been wholly foreseen, at least by the general public, in 2001. One wonders what plans will be declassified about 2007 in 2013? If we get there.

21 Comments:

Blogger Utopia Parkway said...

The fact is that we could destroy any of those countries without using nuclear weapons. We could target every bridge, every dam, every power station, every airport and seaport with conventional bombs.

The rulers of Iran might be fine down in their nuclear bomb-proof bunkers but there wouldn't be much to eat or drink when they came out. Not everyone would die in the bombing but the lack of food, water, and power would kill many afterwards.

100's of thousands were killed during bombing attacks during WW II in Europe and Japan. We've certainly improved our capabilities since then.

OTOH, there is a certain finality to a nuclear explosion. It makes a statement that is hard to misunderstand. Use of conventional bombs might make our enemies think they could wait us out.

We would be very unlikely to use nuclear bombs without a severe provocation.

11/08/2007 09:12:00 PM  
Blogger deepinjuncountry said...

I think the point is that our nuclear option would be used in response to someone going nuclear, chemical or biological on us. The recent Israeli adventures in Syria would seem to indicate that our targeting the "axis of evil" (recognize the countries still representing danger?) is not an irresponsible or provocative policy.

11/08/2007 09:43:00 PM  
Blogger deepinjuncountry said...

The again, if it is provocative or irresponsible, tough shit!

11/08/2007 09:44:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

The alternative comment is to follow the advice of the Prince, i.e. be Machiavellian and destroy your enemies completely.

I'll make the counter-argument (though I have grave reservations about it). If we had simply nuked Afghanistan AND it's puppet-master Pakistan, Riyahd and other cities in Saudi Arabia (the financiers of 9/11) and killed, oh say around 5-20 million people or thereabouts, left the rest of those nations in ruins with the level of infrastructure and wealth to be that of stone age tribesmen, and most critically simply ending some extended clans existence, the world would be a much different place.

Osama's (and Saddam's and Khomeni's and Hezbollah's and Rafsanjani's and Ahmadinejad's) central argument that the US was a "weak horse" unable and unwilling to use it weapons would be instantly and totally discredited.

In that regard the US would be feared, not loved, but not hated. Only obvious and stupid enemies would be killed, the killing would be all at once, and then stop. And the way to avoid killing would be simply to avoid attacking or entanglement with attacking the US. This is straight out of the Prince, where Machiavelli advises on the nature of conspiracies and why they fail (others brought into the conspiracy to achieve it fear the Prince and his vengeance more than they hate him and so betray the conspiracy for clemency and money and avoidance of fates like being drawn and quartered) and sometimes succeed (men are made poor and have "nothing to lose" while still remaining alive).

Machiavelli cites the Roman Emperor who as a soldier was unmatched and the respect and fear of the Legions, but put to death shamefully the brother of his bodyguard, who he also daily abused but kept in his personal retinue. And eventually killed him because he no longer had fear but rather overwhelming hatred.

IF we had done such a thing (wipe out the Pashtun People, Saudi princes), Saddam would have fallen in line. He would have had nothing to gain from provoking a fight with the US (having seen what happens to enemies who threaten the US post-9/11). Very possibly the Iranians would have abandoned the nuclear program seeing it would only make them a target and they would never have enough material to stand off the US ala the Soviet Union (no ballistic missile submarines, no bomber fleets, not ICBMs at the constant ready). Since Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would have done it no good and been destroyed by the first launch.

Other nations would have ended the double game the Saudis play, i.e. professing friendship while funding AQ. The money source for AQ would be gone, squabbling successor tribes would battle over the oil fields and foreign workers and investment to make money off them. Oil would pump out at faster rates to pay for reconstruction. Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and other Muslim nations would end the anti-American propaganda provocations out of fear of encouraging another attack by their people on the US and suffering the same consequences of the Afghan and Pakistan and Saudi princes/rulers.

The Muslim street would be cowed into silence and fear. Mecca and Medina of course would be untouched, and open for pilgrimages.

There would need be no invasion of Iraq, no problems with Iran (ending their support for Hezbollah terror aimed at the US -- simply too risky). No more no-fly zones and sanctions could be lifted against Saddam, Saddam played off against Iran in the old game.

There would not even be any European street riots -- they would be as scared as everyone else.

North Korea would come to terms and stop it's double game of outsourced nuclear proliferation with Syria. Too risky if they're caught in bed with terrorists trying to attack America. Kim Jong-Il loves his live and luxury. Credibly threaten both and he'll fall in line.

In short, ALL THESE GOOD THINGS flow from the "mere deaths of 5-20 million people." Machiavelli would have urged it, so too Sun Tzu or Miyamoto Musashi. The deaths of course would be critical, particularly in the main killing the Pashtun people in great masses.

Jihadis might not fear individual death, but they fear the death of their people, their tribe/clan/family. Credibly wipe out those and other jihadis will pull back from that brink. It was the policy of Hulagu Khan and as awful as it was, it worked.

The main defense of this policy is that the killing is all done at once. It's supporters will say this is ultimately more humane in that it causes fewer deaths than a decades long affair which will inevitably end with the nuking of a US city and a US response of strategic (that is, wiping out whole nations not selected portions) nature.

My sense of history and human nature tells me this is so. That for men like Osama, or Zawahari, or Mullah Omar, or Ahmadinejad there is nothing taboo or forbidden or "magical" about nuclear weapons, they see them as an excellent way to kill the infidel Americans and see Americans as weak and unable to hit back in any meaningful way (i.e. wiping out their clans Mongol style).

My sense of horror and desire to avoid the deaths of 5-20 million people if it can be avoided says this course should not have been taken. That it was wise that it was not and America and the world as a whole are better off.

BUT ... I find it hard to argue with the Machiavellian logic that once the trap has caught the Prince (or nation) nothing but horribly bloody struggle can save it. Or the logic that we have not found any means whatsoever to deter a nuclear attack on US cities by determined enemies through deniable proxies, because we are not feared nor is our response feared. That by not visibly punishing obvious enemies (the Pashtun people, the Saudi Princes) by ending their lines, most if not all of them, we guarantee their continued attacks as well as others who see our weakness. Attacks that will take the point of nuclear weapons.

I think (along with Sam Nunn btw) that it is highly probable we will lose several American cities soon to nuclear weapons.

11/08/2007 10:27:00 PM  
Blogger Fat Man said...

At what point is somebody going to be prosecuted for leaking what should be top secret documents?

11/08/2007 11:09:00 PM  
Blogger Tarnsman said...

whiskey, there is only one American President in our history that would have responded in the manner you describe, and he is long dead and buried. I seriously doubt he would have a pray of being elected in today's political climate, but if some how he were at the helm I know the world would truly lie wide awake at night in fear of the United States. And yes, the world would be a much different place. I speak of the President who personally applied an ass-whooping to a would-be assassin. 'Ol Hickory would have nuked Kabul on 9/12 (if he waited that long) and would have made his demands know that were to be met unconditionally and on time or other Arab/Muslim cities would suffer the same fate. I seriously doubt he would spare Medina and Mecca from his announced target list.

11/08/2007 11:24:00 PM  
Blogger deepinjuncountry said...

Whiskey, noooo way any of your Machiavellian strategies will or would have been implemented. No President will ever have that kind of courage. You think half the country is deranged now? Just imagine what would have happened.

A couple of years ago I saw a small piece of one Bill Maher show, where he actually recommended that we should wait until a city has been nuked and then we could determine who supplied the nuke before retaliating. No preventive strike, just pick up your dead, investigate and take action.

This is what the country is up against. You know, Pogo and all that. The level of cowardice is astounding. In Maher's case, all you have to remember is the pathetic groveling he did when his network show was cancelled and the subsequent exponential increase in his arrogance when those scumbags at HBO hired him.

There are a thousand adjectives I could use to decrbe the perfidy of Maher and his ilk, but I really believe it comes down to cowardice.

11/08/2007 11:49:00 PM  
Blogger Sparks fly said...

To make a big deal out of this appears to actually be an attack on America's sovereignty. Who doesn't know that the U.S. is a gigantic ship that must have contingency plans in place ahead of time for serious and dangerous and forseeable circumstances that could suddenly come up?

Are we not to have plans in place for these things? Says who? What's the alternative?

Who is the Federation of American Scientists? (Sounds like a 1950's communist front organization.) How did they acquire these documents? Were they purposely released by this administration as a way to unofficially tell the Russians and the Chineese that we are not targeting them? Would they even care?

Did someone in the State Department lie instead of doing their homework and crafting their statements more carefully? If they did shame on them.

Are different agencies in the Federal government having turf wars?

Obviously someone is trying to embarass America or someone in the government. Why?

The nuclear Genie is out of the bag. The bad guys are afraid of us and that is good. There is a world out there and in here full of pagans whose saliva drools looking at the U.S. They drool for budgets and booty and they shake because they know they might do something stupid and have to run for their lives. They aren't sure how stupid they can act and get away with it. Look at what happened to Nebuchadnezzer-Saddam. Look at Bill and Hillary right now. It seems their day is finally passing and none to soon. It was an amazing run. Look at Kerry and Algggore! These guys are sent directly from central casting for a Vincent Price movie, such as.. The Night of The Living Dead! They should have been laughed off the political stage years ago. Instead millions of "normal" appearing people voted for them. Their character flaws are the things the Marx Bros. used in their movies 60 years ago as foils for their pranks. Back then everybody roared with laughter at people like Al. The savages must be thinking that America is pretty stupid. Stupid and lucky!

The monkey thought it was all in fun,
pop goes the weasel! America is playing the part of the monkey right now.

11/09/2007 12:03:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...

For the first time in a long while I am cautiously optimistic that the War on Terror can be won without recourse to large-scale bloodshed. The reason is not an increase in the power of the available weapons, but an increase in the knowledge of how, when and where to employ them.

The changes in targeting doctrine remind us of how people used to think about dealing with security issues in the immediate aftermath of the long Cold War. Nuclear weapons (and worse) will continue to occupy a niche in the continuum of responses in the same way that the donjon or keep had a role in days gone by. It is the last ditch, but we would be fools to fight in the last ditch.

Today I think we know that the real action should occur as far forward as possible, not simply in geography but in the proactive sense. Information warfare, political and intelligence operations covered and secured by kinetic force where required is probably where the action should be.

On September 12 we were probably not very much weaker in a purely kinetic sense than we are today. But we were far poorer in information. The enemy was a mystery to most Americans. Today the level of discussion in a public blog of moderate quality would probably exceed the sophistication of graduate seminars on the subject in 2000. This is increase in knowledge is even more marked among those who have served multiple tours of duty in contact with the enemy or have worked as contractors in some related field. Experience and knowledge is our most precious resource. That experience now makes us an order of magnitude more effective and paradoxically far less randomly deadly then back then.

But old thinking persists not simply in targeting doctrines. It also survives in outmoded political doctrines. Language is a giveaway. Iraq is "Vietnam". Bill Maher applies the calculus of proportional response blindly from a superpower rivalry context to the war on terror, waiting for a city to be vaporized before considering a response. Some modes of thinking are simply proof against learning, as cults are proof against discredit. If our greatest gains have come from learning, our greatest weaknesses have come where we have refused to learn.

11/09/2007 12:06:00 AM  
Blogger rhhardin said...

Imus, right after 9/11, said that Bush was the right man for the job because he's enough of a prick to pull the trigger.

Which was the mood of the country.

11/09/2007 03:02:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

The FAS is a private group whose objectives have never been clear, except that they never seem to speak in favor of any particular weapons system and certainly take a special delight in "outing" classified or sensitive data.

The FAS obviously wishes to appear as an independent group of experts whom the media and policy analysts can count on to offer an detailed technical viewpoint. They appear to be biased rather heavily toward the Left - but then again in the fever swamps of DC, what is not.

I believe that the main interest of the FAS is the same as many such "expert" groups - to be recognized as experts and therefore receive honors and funding as a result.

Probably the most well known FAS member is John Pike, who you see on TV rather often being asked about subjects of whch he has at best a passing familiarity. Say "John Pike" in the halls of the Pentagon and and you will get a higher percentage of eye-rolling in response than probably any non-politician.

Another organization, Globalsecurity.org appears to be either a division of FAS or a spin-off. Its orientation seems to be somewhat more neutral than FAS. I had a exchange with a Globasecurity analyst back when the last North Korean Tapepodong launched. He did provide me with some useful information and in turn added info I provided him to their analysis.

11/09/2007 07:11:00 AM  
Blogger LarryD said...

Spengler argues that the Islamists are in fact driven by existential fear as it is. That this drive for Islamic victory is their last chance to save their fundamentalist faith, tied as it is to non-urban life. Given the choice between two different paths to extinction, they might well prefer to go down fighting.

The Saudi's deterrence, at least against the West, is that they are a major oil producer. While we don't import any oil from them, oil is fungible, and any constriction of supply will drive the price we have to pay higher.

Some "liberals" are over-confident, they just can't believe American cities are actually in any danger. Others are outright delusional, they can't handle the notion of any threat at all, so they engage in displacement (Bush Derangement Syndrome), conspiracy theories, or transfer their fears to Global Warming.

11/09/2007 07:41:00 AM  
Blogger Red River said...

Wretchard,

I am not optimistic as you.

Here is why.

1. AQ has a huge foothold in the Pashtun regions of Pakistan and has a good shot of completely destabilizing Pakistan.

2. AQI has a pipeline for training and deploying terrorist teams of about 10K men per year into Iraq. The cadres and logistics are still intact event hough AQI may have decided to withdraw from there. Where will this be used?

3. The Wahhabists are in firm control of most of the teaching institutions in Saudi Arabia.

4. The tempo of creation of home-grown jihadis has not ceased. The Spain and London bombings while amatuerish in many ways, did kill many people.

5. Iran and Hezbollah are as strong as ever. And Iran is arguably the greatest threat and has been the greatest threat to the West since the late 70s.

6. Turkey and Egypt have become much more Islamist since 9/11.

7. Islamist groups continue to grow in power in Indonesia and Thailand.

In short, we have a good knowledge of what the pre-9/11 terrorists look like, but the existing threats and the next to emerge threats are unresolved.

11/09/2007 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/09/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

11/09/2007 08:37:00 AM  
Blogger eggplant said...

Whiskey_199 said:

"The alternative comment is to follow the advice of the Prince, i.e. be Machiavellian and destroy your enemies completely."

A quarrel I have with our current nuclear posture is it is based upon the Cold War concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).

MAD was essentially a bluff. The nuclear weapons developed in support of MAD were never intended to actually be used. However the Soviet Union is now a fading unpleasant memory while our new enemies are the sort who would actually use nuclear weapons. This brings us to the next comment:

LarryD said:

"Spengler argues that the Islamists are in fact driven by existential fear as it is. That this drive for Islamic victory is their last chance to save their fundamentalist faith, tied as it is to non-urban life. Given the choice between two different paths to extinction, they might well prefer to go down fighting."

I agree with this analysis which means that our MAD based nuclear weapons are more likely to attract attack from Islamic fanatics than deter it, e.g. our attack would bring on the 12th Iman. Our current MAD based strategic nuclear weapons are very dirty, i.e. they produce considerable amounts of fallout and neutron radiation. We should be converting our obsolete MAD based nuclear weapons over to clean burning nuclear weapons intended for limited use. If Islamic fanatics were presented with the certainty of total annihilation with little or no collateral damage to us or their neighbors then the fanatics would be less likely to seek nuclear attack, i.e. there is no spiritual advantage in seeking suicide that does not cause consequent damage upon the infidels.

Finally, I agree with Red River's pessimism. While things are going well in Iraq, what's happening in Pakistan is very bad. The Wahhabis are still a huge problem in Saudi Arabia. Also what's left of our sinking economy will tank after Iran's nuclear capability is stripped out. Will Hillary be an adequate leader to deal with these issues? Somehow I doubt it.

11/09/2007 09:07:00 AM  
Blogger Douglas said...

Apparently, FAS got this document under the Freedom of Information Act, so for the record, it seems as if no one "leaked" it. Just our government at work, for better or worse.

To pick up on whiskey's discussion, I would add that Gen. Sherman is famous for having said that "War is all cruelty, and you cannot reform it," but just as important is his commentary on that remark: that the more cruel you are in war, the sooner you will end it, and the more likely it is that you will have lasting peace afterward. Remember that Sherman's great fear regarding the Civil War was that the South would take up arms again and again, and that America would have to go through the same damned thing every generation.

It's the same sort of thinking that informed the use of the atomic bomb against Japan: End it; end it ASAP; and end it with such emphasis that the enemy understands that there is no point in making war on us ever again. That seems to have leeched out of our strategic thinking somewhere in the last 50 years.

11/09/2007 11:35:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

larryd,
whom ever led you to believe that the US does not import oil from the Sauds, well amigo, they misled you.

The US has imported from the Sauds.
SAUDI ARABIA 1,427,000 barrels of oil (44 Gal.) on average each and every day of 2007, to date.
Top 15 exporters of oil to the US.

11/09/2007 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

At $96 USD per barrel

Well, anyone can do the math for '08

11/09/2007 11:49:00 AM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

In sort of defense of Maher, killing millions of people is an ugly thing. No one would want to do it, if he could avoid it (I speak of course only of Westerners, non-Westerners would of course never turn a hair).

But also the Cold War sheltered Americans with the idea that conventional military was irrelevant and force was useless. That thinking is of course dead since 1991. FAS did perhaps perform a good service in restraining people from MAD, but things have fundamentally changed.

Wretchard -- if anything I am MORE pessimistic than you and think we WILL lose cities, WILL have to kill many/most Muslims. Here is why:

1. Nuclear proliferation is unstoppable. The US cannot stop China, North Korea, Pakistan (AQ Khan), Iran (committed btw to proliferation), Russia, the EU, and other nations from proliferation as the Syrian-North Korean-Iran affair shows.

With many nuclear nations, there is no return address to deniable terrorist proxies and the cost of nuking America is low and easily paid. History shows relying on goodwill of enemies not attack you is stupid.

2. Muslims world-wide have seen with their own eyes confirmation that America lacks the will to use weapons when threatened. It's understandable that comfortable upper class people would shrink from ugly violence because well, violence IS UGLY. Refusal to use it however is a weakness that enemies exploit.

Hollywood, Dems, Media decrying America as evil and rushing to surrender in Iraq AND Afghanistan only cements this view.

3. Spengler is right, but also Islam only finds peace within itself by conquering others (non Muslims) and distributing wealth, slaves, land to others to keep the peace within Islam. Evidence suggests (Morocco is already threatening Spain about it's enclaves in North Africa, and has claims to Al-Andulus) this will be repeated in Europe with territorial claims being advanced, against weak and defenseless Europe which persuaded itself that nuclear weapons trumped all other arms.

4. Non Western peoples find Nuclear weapons better and more useful killing tools -- the more dead of the enemy and the more miserable conditions for the survivors, the better. I cannot imagine why people like Islamists would NOT want to nuke Western cities. Of course they would and will soon have the opportunity.

Tarnsman is correct that only Jackson would have implemented such a strategy. But he was a product of his time -- i.e. the Frontier guaranteed most Americans had direct, personal experience with physical violence and it's uses and limits.

What sort of country would America be AFTER we lose several cities? Why one even more experienced personally than Jackson's America -- and one with very few if any limits on violence as survival is at stake. I can quite imagine AFTER several US cities have been nuked (and for a while, Maher's view of legalism and determination of guilt/innocence holding) a revolt of the people against the leaders and straight out killing on a massive scale of those who are viewed as America's existential threats -- i.e. Muslims. As Wretchard points out.

But the main reason Wretchard I believe you are wrong is that America has no way of preventing a stealth nuclear attack and the political class is not serious about it. Lieberman's speech saying Democrats hate Bush more than they love America and have become emotionally invested in America's defeat is accurate.

Already through Press, Dem, and Hollywood pressure, aggressive interrogation of AQ prisoners has been deemed torture and forbidden. NSA intercepts are stymied with legalisms and procedures. Privacy and non-discrimination concerns trump national security. Luxuries of a nation unconcerned about survival.

We must be lucky and good ALL THE TIME with both hands tied behind our backs while the enemy has the luxury of continued attacks from safe havens (Waziristan, perhaps soon all of Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) and needs be lucky only once.

Dennis Kucinich wants Dick Cheney impeached for offering that Iran's nuclear weapons program means that "all options are on the table" wrt US response. America is weak, divided, and filled with UFO lunatics. Inviting attack.

The men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting AQ and the Taliban and other militias/armies like JAM and the Mahdi Army and Muqtada al-Sadr are brave and capable. So too are the allies of convenience (for the moment) in Iraq and Afghanistan. How that equates to stopping Pakistan from handing off a spare nuke or two to Osama or Iran's nuclear weapons program (and a spare deniable nuke to Hezbollah) to destroy American cities through deniable "non-provable" proxies escapes me.

11/09/2007 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger amr said...

Listening to politicians, pundits, the media and the man on the street interviews, one certainly can believe that Americans have lost the survival instinct of past generations. The emphasis on, “we will not be liked if we do ______ (fill in the blank)” is appalling. I always thought that to do what is right and just for America would not require apologies nor would the fear if being disliked freeze us into inaction.

Not being proactive, not utilizing special ops or conventional warfare, requires that you wait for the enemy to attack and hope that his attack will not cause your society (and form of government) to collapse. And how will you respond when the enemy has not declared his act of war. We find all too many citizens have excuses for our enemies; so would our government not respond because there was no hard proof of who caused the attack. Maybe there would be an outcry for us to take it to the UN for a proper adjudication.

I would rather see our country feared and respected than liked and perceived as weak. The latter, in the world of ever expanding WMD, invites America’s demise in a global form of suicide by cop.

11/09/2007 07:45:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

The published PDF of the document itself is mostly redacted, under the FOIA code: "(b)(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;"

This much is very clear, and not really "news" since Pres. Clinton actually ordered the first post-disarmament re-design of nuclear weapons with specific low yield bunker-busters.

This paper follows that natural logic:
"PREPARING FOR UNCERTAINTY
- Adversaries seek to negate US conventional force superiority with several key capabilities
- - Hardened and deeply buried facilities
- - - WMD production, storage
- - - National level political and military leadership
- - Mobility
- - - Ballistic missile WMD delivery systems
- - - Military leadership"

And look at the list of regional targets: Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria. Notice there's no Afghanistan on there.

This plan was not designed to fight Al Qaeda, or even punish them and their enablers, as some of us believe we should have before the sun ever set on the smoke over the WTC, the Pentagon and Flight 93 on 9/11/01.

11/10/2007 10:10:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger