Posted on 07/09/2004 7:44:21 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned Americans to stay watchful for terrorism, saying that al Qaeda could be preparing to carry out a large-scale attack. His cry of concern, interpreted by critics as scaremongering, illustrates the administration's dilemma on homeland security, caught between deadly threats and partisan mischief.
While precise knowledge of prospective assaults does not exist, Mr. Ridge notes that there have been credible indications that "al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process." Terrorists may be trying to follow the Madrid model; George W. Bush is their most hated enemy.
Mr. Ridge preceded his press conference by briefing members of Congress. Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader, correctly said that there is "no reason for panic or paralysis." Nevertheless, "the country is at some increased risk between now and the time of the presidential election. It's important for people to be aware of that."
A senior campaign adviser to John Kerry asserted that the senator would give the White House the benefit of the doubt if it could explain the reasons for the new warnings. Mr. Kerry could know them already. The White House offered that briefing earlier this week, but he has not yet accepted.
Accusing the administration of scaremongering, or trying to whip up patriotism, is disingenuous, or worse. Were Mr. Ridge not to speak out, and the terrorists attack, the hue and cry would be loud and long. Talking heads and presidential candidates would decry the administration's failure; congressional inquiries would be opened; poisoned polemics would fill op-ed pages.
Thus the dilemma: If he speaks out, he is alarmist; if not, he is negligent. Said a senior administration official, "This is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don'ts, and our default is 'do'." For citizens, the default should also be "do" -- do be vigilant, do stay wary.
It cannot be said too often that the nation is at war. On September 11, terrorists murdered 3,000 American civilians with no warning and no mercy. They have tried to kill since. Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican, catalogs more than 100 interrupted terrorist attacks since then, some intended on American soil. Overseas, the best defense against terror is aggressive action. At home, the best defense for civilians -- who are also on the front lines -- is constant vigilance. As Mr. Ridge said, "Every citizen using their common sense and eyes and ears can support our national effort to stop the terrorists."
Accusations of scaremongering cannot obscure the substantial threat that continues to thrive. Mr. Ridge was right to remind us all to be alert.
If we know that Bin Laden is directing this latest threat, and we know that Bin Laden is hiding out along the Packistani/Afghan border - then why isn't the full force of the U.S. military being directed at finding and killing him? Why nearly three years after 9/11 has the military not carried out President Bush's pledge to find Bin Laden dead or alive?
Could it be that our military is still riddled with Clinton hold-overs intent on crippling Mr. Bush's war on terror?
For the love of God, it's not a "dilemma", it's a fact of the new reality. Why the negative spin again and again???
Could be because there aren't any lucrative re-build contracts to be made in Afghanistan. Or that we are deeply mired in Iraq. Or would cost a lot to move troops. It's also probably easier to have control in a country that had at least some infrastructure, as opposed to running all over a place like the Afghan-Paki border looking for a terrorist.
Depending on where I am, I occasionally go to Mass, Mosques, and Temples because I find the atmospheres pleasant and conducive to thinking -- I do not believe there is a hell, and I hope there is an afterlife
There IS an afterlife, and it is EITHER heaven OR hell. It requires effort to ensure you go to the right one. Hoping won't cut it. It takes belief, faith and effort to follow Christ, but it is up to YOU. Christ died for you -- why don't you take the time to read His word, and see what He has to say about what it takes to get to heaven. It is the single-most important thing you could do.
What does any of that have to do with Ridge's dilemma? It's a totally different subject, and I can't believe anyone would want a thread about me.
The US Army tried to capture Pancho Villa in 1917 to no avail. And the US-Mexican border region was territory that we had reason to be familiar with.
I'm not saying that we won't eventually 'get' Bin Laden, I'm just suggesting that beating-the-bushes, as Gen. Pershing did all those years ago, is a colossal waste of time & manpower. Rebels & insurgents are usually betrayed by their own people. We need to do everything that we can to increase the chances for such a betrayal.
Some people care. I am one of those people.
"What does any of that have to do with Ridge's dilemma? It's a totally different subject, and I can't believe anyone would want a thread about me."
Ridge's dilemma is he is damned by the left if he tells us to be more vigilant and damned by the left if he doesn't.
This presents a dilemma. Bottom line was he did.
But then, we live in a land overrun by the scum.
I was replying to #5
Because 1) only a subset of our forces are designed for mountain fighting, and 2) Pakistan has not allowed us to operate on their side of the border.
Thanks
Exactly how do we go about invading Pakistan to do a house to house and cave to cave search for bin Laden without upsetting the delicate and often tense nuclear standoff between Pak and India? How do you avoid a political and religious overthrow of Pak? Sending in US forces to search for bin Laden is like using a marching band to hunt for a mouse. The only way to get him is through intelligence and bribery and carefully planned traps, not massive force.
We did it in the pacific theater in WWII.
If Bin Laden directs another massive attack against the United States we'll have no choice but to go after him with whatever means necessary, so we'll need to figure out a strategy now.
It has been almost 3 years since 9/11 and we still haven't gotten Bin Laden. I want to know why - and I suspect again the answer is that it is due to Clinton holdovers.
The Pacific theater was a bunch of islands, and there was no nuclear threat.
What makes you think you will find out why we don't have Osama, by asking freepers?
Island campaigns were very unique. You could throw a large force at a tiny atoll and supply that force from the sea. The Afghan/Pak border lacks the infrastructure (roads, seaports, railheads & airports) to support a modern field Army. Light infantry forces have a smaller logistical footprint, but they wouldn't be materially stronger than the Taliban guerillas that they are fighting.
To return to your WW2 Pacific analogy: MacArthur's SW Pacific Theater had very large islands -- much larger than those that the Navy/Marine amphib forces assaulted in the Central Pacific. MacArthur's strategy was to grab only enough of those islands to support air/sea operations for the next move. It was with a series of short-range amphibious hooks that US/Australian forces siezed the northern coast of New Guinea. Japanese forces were frequently left to rot in the interior with no offensive option left to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.