Replies

An important read and statement of the strategic predicament America is in. On the one hand, the Administration says we are at war, politicians head-nod and say we are at war, most Americans "support the troops"...and of course we are in a war [unless you listen to Air America everyday]. But the country cannot be said to be united, the politicians spend money like its peacetime, the author is right...we say one thing and do another like "business as usual." The defense budget is too small, the Army is too small and the Clinton era defense cuts and drawdowns helped to put us here.

I support the war and agree the Army should be expanded and transformed. I doubt there will be a draft but America at war should be prepared to support one, and here again we are not. Head-nod we are at war, oh, but no draft! don't extend war time service to those who would not assume the burden anyway. I suppose that's the difference between war in theory and real war.

Finally, if we acquiesce and allow rogue states that sponsor terrorist organizations to possess nuclear weapons then our nuclear deterrence strategy is effectively overcome by events. Our nuclear deterrent strategy must be changed to hold proliferating and terror sponsoring states, organizations and individuals directly at risk should a catastrophic nuclear event occur on United States soil.

Absolutely right. The thing that kept the nuclear genie in the bottle (and in fact kept the Soviets from attempting a conventional attack during the Cold War) was the threat of massive nuclear deterrence. As a result, during the Cold War, we saw warfare morph to proxy combat, the only military avenue open to the Soviets that did not risk their own homeland.

The Global War on Terror has similarly morphed, acknowledging the shift to precision warfare and resulting political consequences of WWII style Clausewitzian Total War. Total War included targeting of civilians, based on the understanding that a society could not field a military without a civilian populace to manufacture weapons and pay taxes to support that military. Precision warfare meant, when facing a conventional military, we could limit our strikes to military targets. Now that the enemy has learned that hiding amongst the populace protects them from strikes, it is increasingly difficult to target precision strikes on enemy infrastructure.

There is only one conclusion: We need a doctrine that tells the world that, if they support terrorism or terrorist infrastructure, they will suffer massive countervailing force, against both military and civilian targets. Al Qaeda could not exist without the support of extremists in many countries throughout the Middle East. They need to understand that everything they love and value on this earth is at risk, if they support terrorists: Their families, their homes, their mosques, their holy sites.

There are no non-combatants in this war. You are either for us, or against us. If you support us, we will help you defend yourselves from the terrorists. If you support the terrorists, we will plow your fields with salt, and your grandchildren's grandchildren, such as survive, will continue to rue the day that their ancestors committed the error in judgement of attacking the United States of America.

Does that sound harsh? Of course. So did Mutually Assured Destruction - But it was the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, and the absolute certainty on the part of the Soviets that we had the will to implement it, which paradoxically meant we never had to do so.