Posted on 09/17/2001 9:48:08 AM PDT by Starmaker
As the Bush Administration prepares its response to the horrible terrorist attack against the United States, there are several matters that should be discussed up front.
The first is this: To actually achieve a meaningful victory over these kinds of terrorists will take a radically different approach by our military than we have ever had before. The fact is the terrorists are engaging in fourth generation warfare. These terrorists are not loyal to any nation state. They are loyal only to their fanatical religion. This religion knows no boundaries. They are operating in fifty or more countries. To eradicate such a movement will take a long time. It will require rebuilding our human intelligence system. Thanks to Bill Clinton, who picked up where Jimmy Carter left off, we all but did away with real spies. Their thinking held that only bad guys had spies and we were going to show the world that we were now the good guys. We instead have relied on new technology for our intelligence gathering. Well, satellites can't infiltrate terrorist cells.
President Bush has said over and over again that this effort will require patience and may take years. He is absolutely correct but I doubt that this has, of yet, penetrated the American consciousness. After all, since we lost the protracted war in Vietnam, we have only known quick little wars. President Reagan presided over a relatively small conflict, which was over in a couple of days. President Bush-41 did take a long while to mobilize for the Gulf war and to put the coalition together to prosecute it, but the actual land operation against Iraq was over within less than a week. President Clinton engaged in some military operations but they were usually billed as peace keeping or so called nation-building missions. There were few casualties and while we are still engaged in most of these arenas, such as Bosnia, there is so little coverage of these conflicts that the average American isn't even aware that we are still there.
That is why it is unlikely that Americans understand what Bush means when he talks of patience and a protracted conflict. Just to acquire the minimum ability to fight fourth generation warfare will take at least a year and a half. The real question is whether or not we have the political will to engage in a sustained conflict. Our enemies are banking on the belief that we do not. They saw how we cut and ran out of Vietnam and thus were defeated by a third rate power. They look at these little conflicts since then and figure they don't count. They recall the phony engagement that Clinton pulled off to try to distract the House from voting on his impeachment. They are not wrong to believe that we don't have the stomach for a real war and especially one in which there are likely to be no immediate victories.
If the show of unity we are now seeing in Congress and elsewhere is real then it will be up to all of our leaders to stress the need for patience and the truth that we must — to win — be in this for the long haul. I find it hard to believe that some of these leaders, with elections approaching next year, won't begin to try to create political advantage by pointing to a lack of results. I hope I am wrong about that, but knowing some of them as I do, I find it hard to imagine that they will stay the course when they think they can score points with the American voter by bolting and crying foul.
Meanwhile, most every American is asking himself what can be done to combat terrorism in the short run. There is one step that can be taken now which is simple to implement and which will produce immediate results. We should arm our pilots and co-pilots and anyone else who has cockpit duty. We trust these people with our lives. We can trust them with side arms. Former Drug Czar Bill Bennett surfaced the idea on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" cable program last week. There were hundreds upon hundreds of calls supporting the proposition with not a single dissent from any pilot.
That idea was seriously discussed a few decades ago at the time when the United States was experiencing what seemed to be an unending series of hijackings. Instead we elected to inconvenience the passengers by establishing the security checks with which we are all so familiar.
We see how much good those checks did on September 11th. They were likewise ineffective in previous incidents as well. History might well be very different if the pilots and co-pilots of the four Terrorist planes had been armed. If some who operate the planes don't know how to handle firearms, the NRA I am sure, will be happy to sponsor classes for them to learn.
The arguments against arming our pilots and co-pilots are trivial compared with the common sense view that this small step will contribute to airline safety in the short run.
I hope our lawmakers, who always want to do something in a time of crisis so it appears they are useful, will take up this idea. If they pass such a law and the President signs it, then they might actually have made a real contribution for the common good.
Haven't flown with a woman pilot, have you?
Apparently we are all going to have to learn how to kill armed hijackers with our bare hands.
Even a catastrophic decompression is preferable to what happened on Tuesday. But that is another liberal lie. 10,000 deaths.
Terrorists love a PC nanny-nation of victims (which is what we are becoming today).
Even a catastrophic decompression is preferable to what happened on Tuesday. But that is another liberal lie. 10,000 deaths.
Terrorists love a PC nanny-nation of victims (which is what we are becoming today).
I am not sure putting bullit holes in the fusalage is such a good idea at 30,000 feet.
Personally, it would make more sense to me to give every passanger a fully charged tazer when they boarded. Yes, you would be giving on to the terrorist, but tazers only work once per charge. The terrorist would then be facing a cabin full of armed people.
Probably would reduce the amount of air rage also.
just a thought.
Uh, nothing.
A small hole in an airplane is not going to be a big deal, I don't care how high it is. All of that explosive decompression hogwash is just Hollywood special effects. If you put a bullethole in an airplane, you are left with just that, a bullethole. Even if the plane does have a chance do decompress through that small hole (which would take hours) the supplemental oxygen masks would just deploy.
Or do you prefer to be smashed into a stationary object at 500 mph?
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.