[uscit]

...it needs to act quickly to seal national borders and bolster the ranks of the Immigration and Naturalization Service so it can root out the thousands of potential terrorists in the United States....A recognized nation with a conventional army, Iraq should be dealt with as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War -- though containment, not combat....

He makes a tremendous amount of sense to me.

[JasonC]

You can't beat the terrorists with a purely defensive strategy. And he is wrong that it would take 40 years to beat Iraq, and that it is inessential. Yes Al Quada operatives hide in the shadows. But their nuclear weapon development programs do not hide in shadows, they require the shelter of entire nation-states with access to billions of dollars in funding, coercion of millions, etc.

The danger from terrorists is that they will get vastly improved weapons over time if left alone, if their sanctuaries are allowed to them, and we adopt a defensive posture. Hunting cells with small units of snake-eaters will not stop that long term threat. Only destruction of the regimes that harbor and arm terrorists can do so.

Which, contrary to Hackworth's pontificating, the administration and present military high command understands far better than he does. None of which means we shouldn't be doing more defensively than we are. But Iraq is no mistake, Hackworth is completely off base there. He is criticising people who know exactly what they are doing and are going about it more intelligently than his own suggestions, because sniping at them is the way to get media attention. It is beneath him, and not helpful at all.