Replies

I think part of the answer "why" is because fighting this war nation-state by nation-state is "winnable" (Afghanistan-Iraq-Libya-Syria(?)-Iran(?)-North Korea(?) ).

Fighting an all-out war against Islam/"Islamism"/"jihadism" is not winnable.
A decades or centuries-long war of apocalyptic attrition is the best case scenario.
In that scenario, millions of Americans will die in coming years/decades and tens of millions of our adversaries (most on both sides being entirely innocent civilians - - the war on terror would become the ultimate war *of* terror).

Worst case scenario is sudden escalation to mutual annihilation sometime in the near to mid-term (once WMD capabilities become widespread and reach a "saturation point") with hundreds of millions dying on both sides and the survivors taking generations to rebuild civilization.

We are different from Israel in that we have the relative power to shape the regional and global battlefield. They do not (except at the margins). In their game, they have to play the hand they are dealt. In our game, we are the dealer.

Israel could have never forced Libya to disarm. We did. Our strategy is more sophisticated and calibrated because we are playing this out on multiple battlefields. Their strategy is also nuanced. Even though they struck Syria for the first time in decades last October, they struck and empty camp. And this time, they didn't use the IAF where there would be definite collateral damage in a bombing, but they targeted an individual. If Syria and Israel get into full scale conventional war (and the pressure is now high on Syria to escalate this - - we will soon see whether this was a brilliant move on the part of Israel or strategic idiocy based on whether this escalates and how far) , then this becomes mankind's first WMD regional/world war. No one wants that, especially Syria or Israel because they would both be ground zero.

There is still a chance Syria may be ready to go the Libya route. It is slim, but who thought Moammar would straighten up and fly right?

If we have to do this the hard way, then we will. But the cost will be horrendous here at home and abroad. The Cold War was won because we were ready to go down the hard road of nuclear war if necessary, but no one in their right mind would deny that it would have been idiocy to actually desire that outcome. No one would have "won". But we could not let the "terror" of that possibility force us to flinch, we had to be ready to fight an unthinkable and unwinnable war to bring the Cold War global conflict to an end.

We have to be ready to go down the hard road (and turn away from the siren songs of the same leftists who wanted unilateral freezes/disarmament/surrender in the latter stages of the Cold War). But we have to resist the urge to "cut to the chase" and begin what some saw/see as the inevitable global clash that had better be fought sooner rather than later.

The Cold War could have ended in 1962. Our nuclear superiority at the time of the Cuban missile crisis was still unchallenged as the Soviets did not close the missile gap until the late 1970s. But while we would have "won" from the standpoint of military strategy (we could have survived as a functioning nation but they would not), it would have been a pyhhric victory as our losses in a 1962 nuclear exchange would still have definitely been in the millions if not tens of millions.

It was far better that we were patient and won a relatively bloodless victory rather than seeing global conflict, the clash of Cold War civilizations, as inevitable. Reagan saw that as he was ready to press the "pedal to the metal" (unprecedented peacetime military buildup; "evil empire" speech"; SDI; doctrine of rollback rather than containment), but his strategy was nuanced and sophisticated enough so that when that resolve began to produce results (internal debates within the USSR; signs of their system fracturing; openness to negotiated end to global hostilities on terms favorable to us), he began to negotiate peace from a position of strength (Nixon tried to do this with Brezhnev in the early 70s; but detente was an expression of American weakness (Vietnam and Watergate) rather than strength as it was under Reagan.

I am not saying we can *ever* have a peaceful outcome or negotiate with terrorists.
They are undeterrable and cannot be negotiated with, only destroyed. But the "terrorists" are not the enemy. The nation-states that sponsor them are because without them they cannot survive just as fire cannot burn without oxygen.

Yogi Berra once said something to the effect of (and I'm paraphrasing here) "wherever you happen to be, there you are". Terrorists may appear to be "stateless", but it is an illusion. They have to plan, train, fund, publicize and organize. They cannot do that from Mars. They have to be somewhere on this planet.

The Bush Doctrine is the *only* (and I mean *only*) way to win this war. The axis of evil is the center of gravity. And like the Cold War, the fewer of the coming wars that go "hot" the better.

It would be best to win the war and at the same time, in the end, still have a world worth the saving and not some apocalyptic wasteland that has been ravaged over the coming decades of new Dark Ages that, unlike the Cold War, would result from the undeterrable, martyrdom-seeking madness of a merciless, unrestrained, insane Crusade/Holy War/Jihad of genetic weapons and repeated acts of urban nuclear terrorism. A "scorched earth policy" when it comes to WMD jihad will result in a scorched Earth for all of us.

Reagan won the Cold War. I take my script from him. Be fully prepared to kill and destroy your enemy, not only with expressions of sincere intent, but of overwhelming capability, *but*, once he shows he is ready to deal - - embrace him. And if we take down enough of these states that support terrorism, there will literally be nowhere left for terrorists to hide.

If you take the six nations in the first sentence and add Cuba (and Castro is on his last legs), you have the seven state-sponsors of terrorism as defined by our State Dep pre-9/11.

Take away the states and you cripple and even neutralize the terrorists they sponsor. Whether by "regime change" (Afghanistan and Iraq) or by the "regime changing" (Libya), we are methodically advancing in a campaign to destroy global terrorism. We can do this the easy way (a regime voluntarily disarming and changing its ways), or the hard way (changing a regime by forcible disarmament).

Either way, we will do it. But always leave the door open for the wayward to come in from the cold.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/482329.html

Last update - 12:58 27/09/2004

Hamas: Arab state may have helped Israel with assassination

By Amos Harel, Yoav Stern, and Arnon Regular, Haaretz Correspondents, and news agencies

(snip)

DAMASCUS - Hamas said on Monday an Arab country might have helped Israel assassinate one of its leaders in Damascus, an act it called "treason."

Senior Hamas official Iz a Din al-Sheikh Khalil was killed by a car bomb in the Syrian capital on Sunday.

"We were not convinced initially, this would be treason for an Arab security apparatus to be involved in this," Hamas Lebanon head Osama Hamdan said of a report in the Al-Hayat daily.

The Arabic daily said an Arab country had given the Israeli spy agency Mossad information about the movements and habits of Hamas leaders abroad.

"Now, because of what happened yesterday or through other information, there are indications that this may be case," he said.

A spokesman in Gaza for Hamas said Sunday the killing was "a cowardly crime by the Zionist Mossad."

Good post. The advent of nuclear weaponry in Iran is not an issue that will go away. Between Iran and North Korea, the Axis of Evil can now reach London and Seattle via missile/submarine. Worse, they can reach Denver and Sydney by proxy once they have fissionable material to auction off to the highest terrorist bidder.

One of my gravest concerns is that Al Qaeda will attempt to seriously unhinge the U.S. economy by endorsing a surprise WMD attack on Japan via North Korea. The U.S., of course would have to respond in defense of Japan, but in doing so, would be sacrificing Seoul, as well. The world economy would be in a shambles, not only based on the physical attack of Japan, but also due to the realization that the nuclear line had been crossed and would inspire further attacks by other rogue nations.

If, on the other hand, N. Korea stays put, we are still faced with Iran and her certain desire to gain control of the Shiite regions of Southeastern Iraq. Given the current state of affairs, would a nuclear Iran be impeded if they moved conventionally into that region? If, by holding a warhead over the Western Europe and Israel, Iran gains unprecedented leverage, I think the world would write off that region in hopes of developing some sort of Arms agreement with the mullahs instead.

In Iran, we are dealing with a terrorist state. There are no "rules" when it comes to terrorism. There are no non-combatants in Western society, therefore, all men, women , and children are "legitimate" targets. To that end, I foresee a major conventional confrontation with Iran, sooner rather than later. The one benefit of Iran is its somewhat "Westernized" population of twenty- and thirty-somethings who I believe would much easier make a transition into power than the current situation in Iraq. That has got to be the focus of any military options going forward. We can't "nuke" Tehran when there is a willing, educated populace ready to embrace democracy.

Pakistan. Musharaff's a goner. It's just a matter of time. That's a situation we cannot comprehend, if the Islamists take over. Not only for us, but for India.

Syria/Israel. Any recommendations?

I guess what it boils down to is this. If the average person sat down and looked at the current chess board (or Risk board, for that matter), they would not be thinking about government-subsidized health care or the Patriot Act.
In my opinion there are several wheels in motion that are going to take a path all their own. Within the next two years, we need to be prepared, as a country, both spiritually and temporally, to absorb the changes which are going to come. We can sit here and hunt for terrorists all day, every day. Meanwhile, the geopolitical crisis cooking in the oven today will render car bombs and beheadings as so much academia in the face of nation-to-nation nuclear warfare...

Have a nice day.