Is our reluctance to discuss the unmentionable because we think we can do nothing in response as if there is no culpable nation-state, a toothless CIA can tell us little, we dare not upset fragile gains in Iraq, or that violence only spawns violence? In a world in which Hezbollah promises to help out with peddling Fahrenheit 9/11, the Spanish people are led by the nose by al Qaeda, and Americans lose their heads to cheers in Middle East Internet cafes, have we given the fatal impression that we would grunt a few times, flip the channel, and then do nothing after a repeat of September 11?
And our silence is almost surreal given the standard past American policy in the Cold War of quietly announcing that a Soviet first strike on the United States would result immediately in massive retaliation. We caricature Mutually Assured Destruction today indeed, it was a frightening Strangelovian concept. Yet in the absence of any better strategy, MAD kept the peace for 50 years and prevented millions of Americans from being incinerated.
So what would the United States do the next time we are hit?...
...What to do? The key for the United States in very quiet and deferential tones, in private, and to the albeit illegitimate leaders of these relevant countries is to convey the message that if there should be a repeat of 9/11, the United States will hold any countries responsible who are proved to have aided or sheltered any of the guilty. Now what does that overused and near-meaningless phrase "hold responsible" really mean? A repeat of Afghanistan and Iraq in places like Iran or Syria?
...Perhaps it would be best to inform hostile countries right now of a (big) list of their assets military bases, power plants, communications, and assorted infrastructure that will be taken out in the aftermath of another attack, a detailed sequence of targets that will be activated when the culpable terrorists' bases and support networks are identified and confirmed. We would have to draft a formal declaration of war as we should have against the Taliban, bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein against those countries that harbored or even aided the next 9/11-like cell. Both sides should anticipate the consequences should another 3,000 Americans be incinerated at work.
...Honesty and resoluteness now might just saves lives later on, as the Middle East realized that it had a collective stake in preventing another calamity.
Oilmen would be aghast that we might hit a country that exports petroleum like an Iran. And we should assume that the Arab world, the Europeans, and many of the Michael Moore Left would hope that we simply take another massive attack, "learn" from our disaster, and then through such pain come to "wisdom" about the "futility" of war begetting war.
Yes, another 9/11 would be a watershed event where the tragic choices in responding would entail only "bad" and "much worse." If it were to occur again, then we would have to realize that we had no foolproof ability to stop such mass terror. And if we were to accept that death sentence and do nothing, then we would also accept the sure end of our civilization as we know it. Compared to that scenario, discussing a bleak response right now doesn't seem so stupid. Keeping silent about it does.
FMCDH(BITS)
"...Perhaps it would be best to inform hostile countries right now of a (big) list of their assets military bases, power plants, communications, and assorted infrastructure that will be taken out in the aftermath of another attack,..."
YOU GO BOY!!! I think the Prez oughta make this known publicly NOW. Should this happen two weeks before the election, or even two days before as in Madrid, and The Prez acted as you suggest, he would win in a landslide. What say ye?
One of his best! Belated VDH BTTT!