Re Lawmakers Set Deal on Raising Fuel Efficiency by John M. Broder and Micheline Maynard:
The article says that House leaders reached a deal on proposed energy legislation. I am all in favor of the automobile mileage requirements (35 mpg). However, I think the proposal that most electric utilities produce 15 percent of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, by 2020, would be insane.
I have long argued that we need to produce most of our electric power from nuclear reactors. That would be the most efficient way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore weaken our enemies in the war on terror, because the more electricity we produce, the lower the price of electricity, and that would incentivize production of electric vehicles.
I have also long advocated R&D to develop viable nuclear fusion power. The advances made in the Bussard fusion reactor show the promise of that technology. Surely we can take a few billion dollars out of the trillions we are wasting in stupid Middle East wars and spend that money on fusion R&D.
Forcing utilities to spend billions on wind and solar is crazy. These technologies are proven failures. They will never yield the massive and growing energy needs of our nation. Requiring utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from wind and solar would be the biggest gift to Osama bin Laden since the insane invasion of Iraq.
Showing posts with label Osama bin Laden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Osama bin Laden. Show all posts
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Down With General Musharraf
The world will be a better off without General Pervez Musharraf leading Pakistan.
Strangely, the United States supported Musharraf for years. Yet, when he was just a general, before his coup ousting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999, Musharraf was fomenting an Islamic terrorist insurgency in India's Kashmir territory, and this helped create a rift between himself and Sharif. This is just one of many examples of the US supporting "freedom fighters" who turn against us. Which is why the US must learn to mind its own business.
It appears that either Sharif or Benazir Bhutto (or both in a unity government) will come out on top of Pakistan in 2008. This will be good. The US should give moral support to democracy in Pakistan, and try to have friendly relations with Pakistan's rulers, but we should not repeat the mistakes we made supporting Musharraf with billions of dollars in foreign aid.
Instead, we should make it clear to the next government in Pakistan that we expect them to rein in the Islamic insurgency in its western, tribal regions, and give us Osama bin Laden, or else we will take matters into our own hands. After all, we are at war with al Qaeda.
Strangely, the United States supported Musharraf for years. Yet, when he was just a general, before his coup ousting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999, Musharraf was fomenting an Islamic terrorist insurgency in India's Kashmir territory, and this helped create a rift between himself and Sharif. This is just one of many examples of the US supporting "freedom fighters" who turn against us. Which is why the US must learn to mind its own business.
It appears that either Sharif or Benazir Bhutto (or both in a unity government) will come out on top of Pakistan in 2008. This will be good. The US should give moral support to democracy in Pakistan, and try to have friendly relations with Pakistan's rulers, but we should not repeat the mistakes we made supporting Musharraf with billions of dollars in foreign aid.
Instead, we should make it clear to the next government in Pakistan that we expect them to rein in the Islamic insurgency in its western, tribal regions, and give us Osama bin Laden, or else we will take matters into our own hands. After all, we are at war with al Qaeda.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Why Our Military Cannot Manage An Exit From Iraq
Our military is trained in fighting wars and countering insurgencies. It is really not trained in nation-building, and it is definitely neither trained nor suited for making foreign policy.
Recent news reports indicate, at a minimum, a temporary reduction in hostilities in Iraq. An optimist would even go so far as to say that the corner has turned, and the American engagement in Iraq is now in the end stage.
In an excellent article in today's NY Times by Michael R. Gordon, Plan Increases Role of G.I.'s in Iraq Training , we are told the specific operational tactics by our military to expedite the reduction of the American military role in Iraq. It is a slow process, and still very costly in blood and treasure. Despite the costs, it appears that there is light at the end of this tunnel.
But this report still infuriates many of us. The criticism of the American invasion of Iraq was never that it was an impossible task, but always a too costly project in terms of blood and treasure, and, most importantly, the wrong project.
After we were attacked on 9/11, the objective should have been the complete destruction of our enemy, al Qaeda. Invading Iraq was never the means to accomplish that goal. Bush's war in Iraq has actually helped our enemy, because it has weakened us, aided the recruitment of troops by our enemy, and taken our eyes off the real target of our revenge.
Every day that Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and the rest of al Qaeda are left breathing and free to attack us again, marks another day of failure for the United States, and we are now more than six years after the 9/11 attack. When I consider all that FDR and his generation did in less than four years after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it sickens me that we are still being led by the most incompetent President in American history.
Recent news reports indicate, at a minimum, a temporary reduction in hostilities in Iraq. An optimist would even go so far as to say that the corner has turned, and the American engagement in Iraq is now in the end stage.
In an excellent article in today's NY Times by Michael R. Gordon, Plan Increases Role of G.I.'s in Iraq Training , we are told the specific operational tactics by our military to expedite the reduction of the American military role in Iraq. It is a slow process, and still very costly in blood and treasure. Despite the costs, it appears that there is light at the end of this tunnel.
But this report still infuriates many of us. The criticism of the American invasion of Iraq was never that it was an impossible task, but always a too costly project in terms of blood and treasure, and, most importantly, the wrong project.
After we were attacked on 9/11, the objective should have been the complete destruction of our enemy, al Qaeda. Invading Iraq was never the means to accomplish that goal. Bush's war in Iraq has actually helped our enemy, because it has weakened us, aided the recruitment of troops by our enemy, and taken our eyes off the real target of our revenge.
Every day that Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and the rest of al Qaeda are left breathing and free to attack us again, marks another day of failure for the United States, and we are now more than six years after the 9/11 attack. When I consider all that FDR and his generation did in less than four years after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it sickens me that we are still being led by the most incompetent President in American history.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
How to Win the War on Terror
Osama bin Laden (OBL) and his fellow travelers in al Qaeda (AQ) do not fear death, since they believe that they will go immediately to "paradise" if they are killed in their jihad with us. That is one reason why I wrote in a previous post that we should use carpet bombing in our war with AQ.
The idea is to cause AQ and OBL in particular emotional pain for their acts of war against us. Ideally, if they suffered enough pain, they would eventually surrender to us or be betrayed by their fellow Islamists. But I have also called for the US to use its ample soft power to defeat AQ.
One target of our soft power should be the twisted religious ideology of OBL and AQ. We should get as many Islamic clerics as possible to denounce OBL and AQ, and explain how OBL has mis-read their faith.
But, if it turns out that that does not work because Islam itself is on the side of OBL and AQ (Michael Scheuer's position), then we should take it upon ourselves, in this time of war, to reform Islam ourselves.
As one who does not subscribe to any organized religion, and who agrees with Christopher Hitchens that "religion poisons everything", I have no compunctions about the United States attacking OBL's faith if that is what it will take to win this war. Obviously, if that premise is false, then there is no need for us to take that drastic step. But unless and until we see a groundswell of Islamic clerics from around the world stating unequivocally that OBL and AQ are wrong in their interpretations of Islam, we shall have to assume that task ourselves.
Keep in mind that in a different era, we fought enemies much more powerful than AQ, and they subscribed to ideologies too: Nazism and the worship of the Japanese Emperor. Yet, after we had inflicted enough pain on the populations which supported our enemies, they discarded their ideologies and surrendered unconditionally to us. We should work towards the very same outcome with OBL and AQ.
The idea is to cause AQ and OBL in particular emotional pain for their acts of war against us. Ideally, if they suffered enough pain, they would eventually surrender to us or be betrayed by their fellow Islamists. But I have also called for the US to use its ample soft power to defeat AQ.
One target of our soft power should be the twisted religious ideology of OBL and AQ. We should get as many Islamic clerics as possible to denounce OBL and AQ, and explain how OBL has mis-read their faith.
But, if it turns out that that does not work because Islam itself is on the side of OBL and AQ (Michael Scheuer's position), then we should take it upon ourselves, in this time of war, to reform Islam ourselves.
As one who does not subscribe to any organized religion, and who agrees with Christopher Hitchens that "religion poisons everything", I have no compunctions about the United States attacking OBL's faith if that is what it will take to win this war. Obviously, if that premise is false, then there is no need for us to take that drastic step. But unless and until we see a groundswell of Islamic clerics from around the world stating unequivocally that OBL and AQ are wrong in their interpretations of Islam, we shall have to assume that task ourselves.
Keep in mind that in a different era, we fought enemies much more powerful than AQ, and they subscribed to ideologies too: Nazism and the worship of the Japanese Emperor. Yet, after we had inflicted enough pain on the populations which supported our enemies, they discarded their ideologies and surrendered unconditionally to us. We should work towards the very same outcome with OBL and AQ.
Review of "Imperial Hubris"
I finally completed reading "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer. This book was published in 2004, but it may be the best book available which both explains how we got to this point in the Bush version of the "war on terror", and what we ought to do next.
I do not agree with the former CIA employee Scheuer on everything, but have nothing but respect and admiration for him and his service to our nation. He learned a lot about al Qaeda (AQ) while he was Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. He explains in detail why we were attacked on 9/11, and how the Bush policies have strengthened AQ while weakening the US.
So, where do we disagree? He elevates bin Laden a bit too much for my taste, and prefers not to call AQ a terrorist organization, but rather a worldwide insurgency. The former stems from his deep understanding of Osama bin Laden (OBL), and the latter from his point that 9/11 was not the act of terrorists but an act of war. A lot of this is just semantics, since I agree with Scheuer in the details.
Scheuer is not correct on how we should fight AQ. It is easy enough to say what we did wrong, but what we should have done in September or even October 2001 is not what we need to do today. Yes, we should have used a massive military invasion force and surrounded and annihilated AQ and OBL. Having failed to do that, the way forward today must be different. I explain how in my next post.
I do not agree with the former CIA employee Scheuer on everything, but have nothing but respect and admiration for him and his service to our nation. He learned a lot about al Qaeda (AQ) while he was Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. He explains in detail why we were attacked on 9/11, and how the Bush policies have strengthened AQ while weakening the US.
So, where do we disagree? He elevates bin Laden a bit too much for my taste, and prefers not to call AQ a terrorist organization, but rather a worldwide insurgency. The former stems from his deep understanding of Osama bin Laden (OBL), and the latter from his point that 9/11 was not the act of terrorists but an act of war. A lot of this is just semantics, since I agree with Scheuer in the details.
Scheuer is not correct on how we should fight AQ. It is easy enough to say what we did wrong, but what we should have done in September or even October 2001 is not what we need to do today. Yes, we should have used a massive military invasion force and surrounded and annihilated AQ and OBL. Having failed to do that, the way forward today must be different. I explain how in my next post.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Pakistan
"The United States has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in aid, mostly to the military, since 2001" according to today's NY Times.
This is a perfect example of why we should not give foreign aid. Country X could be our friend today, and tomorrow our enemy.
If Pakistan descends into chaos, and as a result al Qaeda gets one or more nukes from the Pakistani arsenal, that would be very bad news. So, what did our $10 billion in aid to Pakistan do for us? Nothing!
We should never have allowed al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to escape from Afghanistan. I just wonder, when, if ever, President Bush will get off the learning curve, and start getting results.
Note to OBL: Bush won't be president forever. Your days are numbered.
This is a perfect example of why we should not give foreign aid. Country X could be our friend today, and tomorrow our enemy.
If Pakistan descends into chaos, and as a result al Qaeda gets one or more nukes from the Pakistani arsenal, that would be very bad news. So, what did our $10 billion in aid to Pakistan do for us? Nothing!
We should never have allowed al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to escape from Afghanistan. I just wonder, when, if ever, President Bush will get off the learning curve, and start getting results.
Note to OBL: Bush won't be president forever. Your days are numbered.
The Islamic World Needs New Leadership
There are supposed to be about 1.2 billion Muslims around the world. I have seen polls which suggest varying amounts of support among them for Osama bin Laden (OBL) and al Qaeda (AQ). I imagine a lot of them are "on the fence".
The question that the AQ supporters and the Muslims on the fence should ask themselves is, "Are we better off today than we were on September 10, 2001?".
While I am still reading "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer (along with several other books), I must admit that I agree with almost everything he has written. However, I think he goes a bit overboard in "understanding" OBL and AQ. Of course, we need to understand our enemy. But I come from the school of thought which says you kill him first, then later, at your leisure, try to understand what motivated the guy.
Nevertheless, I have to think that OBL must be second-guessing himself by now. Does he really think there is any way for him to win this war? Are Muslims better off today? I don't think so. There are a lot more people (several billions) who are not Muslim, and many of us now have a very low opinion of Islam, post 9/11.
(As an agnostic, I think all the major religions are nonsense, but they do vary in how much hatred they spawn today, and no religion has "clean hands". (The Inquisition was not very nice.)
The world of humans is very tribal and violent. One would hope that along with all the nonsense about paradise, "God" (definitions vary, as well as whose side "He" is on), angels and devils, at least religion would bring some peace to man's bloody history, but then one would be mistaken.
Sure, there are peaceful Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims. But not nearly enough.)
The only way to turn this around, before it gets any worse for Muslims, is for the "Islamic nation" to replace OBL as its leader. Otherwise, OBL may get his hands on a WMD and kill a great number of Americans. That would lead to a "world war" of America against the "Islamic nation", and that would look a lot different than the so-called wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which really aren't wars, but stupid "nation-building").
It is not my job, or America's, to tell Muslims who to "select" as the next leader. (In fact, "selection" is not the right term, but the idea is, Muslims need a new leader, and it is up to Muslims to find him or her.) OBL talks about paradise and dignity, but delivers blood. He gets fame, but Muslims get pain.
As for Israel, Muslims need to accept it. Israel is also not going away. Instead of supporting OBL and AQ, Muslims should support real anti-poverty programs and education, and allow Palestinians to live anywhere in the "Islamic nation", not segregated into ghetto-like refugee camps.
The world is just a tiny spec of dust in a vast universe. There are something like (10 to the power 22) stars just like our sun. Does anyone really think they know "God"? What is the probability that "God" talks to mere Earthly humans, versus the probability that some mentally ill people are merely experiencing auditory hallucinations? We can only guess at such questions; not one of us actually "knows" the whole truth.
When the "Islamic nation" matures, it will discover a small truth that some of us are already privy to: we humans start out all the same, and none of us is special: we are equally all just insignificant specks of dust in a vast, incomprehensible universe, and that is why we invent religions.
But back to the world as it is. Messy. Painful. Full of strife. Tribal. Angry. The so-called Islamic Nation can never defeat the United States of America. The sooner it realizes this, the sooner it will choose a new leader. Until then, there will be just more pain and humiliation.
The question that the AQ supporters and the Muslims on the fence should ask themselves is, "Are we better off today than we were on September 10, 2001?".
While I am still reading "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer (along with several other books), I must admit that I agree with almost everything he has written. However, I think he goes a bit overboard in "understanding" OBL and AQ. Of course, we need to understand our enemy. But I come from the school of thought which says you kill him first, then later, at your leisure, try to understand what motivated the guy.
Nevertheless, I have to think that OBL must be second-guessing himself by now. Does he really think there is any way for him to win this war? Are Muslims better off today? I don't think so. There are a lot more people (several billions) who are not Muslim, and many of us now have a very low opinion of Islam, post 9/11.
(As an agnostic, I think all the major religions are nonsense, but they do vary in how much hatred they spawn today, and no religion has "clean hands". (The Inquisition was not very nice.)
The world of humans is very tribal and violent. One would hope that along with all the nonsense about paradise, "God" (definitions vary, as well as whose side "He" is on), angels and devils, at least religion would bring some peace to man's bloody history, but then one would be mistaken.
Sure, there are peaceful Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims. But not nearly enough.)
The only way to turn this around, before it gets any worse for Muslims, is for the "Islamic nation" to replace OBL as its leader. Otherwise, OBL may get his hands on a WMD and kill a great number of Americans. That would lead to a "world war" of America against the "Islamic nation", and that would look a lot different than the so-called wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which really aren't wars, but stupid "nation-building").
It is not my job, or America's, to tell Muslims who to "select" as the next leader. (In fact, "selection" is not the right term, but the idea is, Muslims need a new leader, and it is up to Muslims to find him or her.) OBL talks about paradise and dignity, but delivers blood. He gets fame, but Muslims get pain.
As for Israel, Muslims need to accept it. Israel is also not going away. Instead of supporting OBL and AQ, Muslims should support real anti-poverty programs and education, and allow Palestinians to live anywhere in the "Islamic nation", not segregated into ghetto-like refugee camps.
The world is just a tiny spec of dust in a vast universe. There are something like (10 to the power 22) stars just like our sun. Does anyone really think they know "God"? What is the probability that "God" talks to mere Earthly humans, versus the probability that some mentally ill people are merely experiencing auditory hallucinations? We can only guess at such questions; not one of us actually "knows" the whole truth.
When the "Islamic nation" matures, it will discover a small truth that some of us are already privy to: we humans start out all the same, and none of us is special: we are equally all just insignificant specks of dust in a vast, incomprehensible universe, and that is why we invent religions.
But back to the world as it is. Messy. Painful. Full of strife. Tribal. Angry. The so-called Islamic Nation can never defeat the United States of America. The sooner it realizes this, the sooner it will choose a new leader. Until then, there will be just more pain and humiliation.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
War on Terror
It would appear that the Bush Administration does not realize that Osama bin Laden (OBL) and al Qaeda (AQ) are happy with the present course of events. We fell for OBL's trap when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. It has already cost us about a trillion dollars (considering future liabilities such as cost of extracting our troops and future health care for disabled veterans). In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported last month "that the cost of a long-term United States troop presence in Iraq, similar to the U.S. commitment in South Korea, could reach $2 trillion or more in 2008 dollars". (Source: "CBO projects long-term troop presence in Iraq could be costly" by Peter Cohn in CongressDaily dated September 20, 2007.)
There are less expensive ways to defeat OBL and AQ. In a past posting ("How To Defeat Al Qaeda"), I explained how we could win the war using soft power. Today, I will explain how we could win the war using hard power.
Let us suppose that we withdrew our military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, save for a few military bases. We would defend these bases using any and all military options at hand: mine fields, advanced artillery, air power.
Further suppose we brought home all troops from South Korea. This is important, since it is the aim of AQ to defeat us first economically. (That is why they attacked the World Trade Center. They are happy we are nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is such a drain on us economically. For further evidence, look at the collapse of the dollar and the tripling of oil prices since we invaded Iraq.) Bringing home the troops from Korea will save us billions of dollars.
Next, we develop military plans to wipe out any or all of about 20 different cities in nations where a majority of the populations support terrorism. By this I mean complete destruction using conventional weapons (as opposed to WMDs), as we did during World War II in Europe. These plans should be "on the shelf", ready to use at a moment's notice.
The next step would be for the American President to give a televised speech during which he would announce our intention to escalate the war on terror, and demand the unconditional surrender of OBL and all the leaders of AQ. He would give them 24 hours to do this. If this demand is not met, the US would select one city and then proceed to flatten it. Then, after a suitable interval, the American president would make another speech and promise the same result, but indicate that the next attack would be on two cities, then three cities, and so on.
I anticipate two strong and reasonable objections to this policy:
1. It is too harsh.
2. How would this process end if OBL were among the dead?
As to the first, it is harsh, but we are at war. There is no reason to think that AQ would not use a WMD in Manhattan as soon as it gets its murderous hands on such a weapon, and that is only a matter of time. AQ signed the death warrants of its own people the day OBL planned the 9/11 attacks, and current polling clearly demonstrates that OBL is a hero to people everywhere, and they support AQ in their hearts, if not directly. Besides, we should look forward to the day when America is once again at peace with these nations, just as we are now at peace with Germany and Japan, our enemies during WWII. But that day will not come soon if we "stay the course" and bleed to death in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor would it come soon were we to surrender to AQ. Therefore, we have no choice but to increase the level of pain until AQ's supporters finally decide that this is not a war that they can win.
As for the second objection, since AQ is a worldwide organization, it would be impossible for the US to kill the entire leadership in the manner proposed here. Therefore, some AQ leaders would survive several American strikes, and would tell us where OBL was hiding when we killed him. But in all likelihood, OBL himself would survive all such strikes, and surrender himself.
I realize that this is not a politically correct solution to our current war on terror. In fact, I prefer the solution I posted in "How To Defeat Al Qaeda". But I think we are running out of time, especially considering AQ's announced intentions and the unstable situation in nuclear Pakistan.
It is also true that America is partly to blame for the mess we are in. I have long and frequently argued that we should never have fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. We should have "minded our own business" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
But we cannot turn back the hands of time, and we do not live in an ideal world. We have to deal with the world as it is today, not as it might have been.
So far, we have tried to avoid collateral damage. We have used "smart bombs". We have allowed people around the world to finance terrorism without paying a price. We have allowed a hateful ideology to spread, and now it threatens our very existence. So, it is now a time for real war. On our terms, not on the enemy's terms. A war we will win. But first, we need to take off the gloves. Innocent people do die in wars. The sooner we realize this, the sooner even more innocent people will survive to live another day.
There are less expensive ways to defeat OBL and AQ. In a past posting ("How To Defeat Al Qaeda"), I explained how we could win the war using soft power. Today, I will explain how we could win the war using hard power.
Let us suppose that we withdrew our military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, save for a few military bases. We would defend these bases using any and all military options at hand: mine fields, advanced artillery, air power.
Further suppose we brought home all troops from South Korea. This is important, since it is the aim of AQ to defeat us first economically. (That is why they attacked the World Trade Center. They are happy we are nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is such a drain on us economically. For further evidence, look at the collapse of the dollar and the tripling of oil prices since we invaded Iraq.) Bringing home the troops from Korea will save us billions of dollars.
Next, we develop military plans to wipe out any or all of about 20 different cities in nations where a majority of the populations support terrorism. By this I mean complete destruction using conventional weapons (as opposed to WMDs), as we did during World War II in Europe. These plans should be "on the shelf", ready to use at a moment's notice.
The next step would be for the American President to give a televised speech during which he would announce our intention to escalate the war on terror, and demand the unconditional surrender of OBL and all the leaders of AQ. He would give them 24 hours to do this. If this demand is not met, the US would select one city and then proceed to flatten it. Then, after a suitable interval, the American president would make another speech and promise the same result, but indicate that the next attack would be on two cities, then three cities, and so on.
I anticipate two strong and reasonable objections to this policy:
1. It is too harsh.
2. How would this process end if OBL were among the dead?
As to the first, it is harsh, but we are at war. There is no reason to think that AQ would not use a WMD in Manhattan as soon as it gets its murderous hands on such a weapon, and that is only a matter of time. AQ signed the death warrants of its own people the day OBL planned the 9/11 attacks, and current polling clearly demonstrates that OBL is a hero to people everywhere, and they support AQ in their hearts, if not directly. Besides, we should look forward to the day when America is once again at peace with these nations, just as we are now at peace with Germany and Japan, our enemies during WWII. But that day will not come soon if we "stay the course" and bleed to death in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor would it come soon were we to surrender to AQ. Therefore, we have no choice but to increase the level of pain until AQ's supporters finally decide that this is not a war that they can win.
As for the second objection, since AQ is a worldwide organization, it would be impossible for the US to kill the entire leadership in the manner proposed here. Therefore, some AQ leaders would survive several American strikes, and would tell us where OBL was hiding when we killed him. But in all likelihood, OBL himself would survive all such strikes, and surrender himself.
I realize that this is not a politically correct solution to our current war on terror. In fact, I prefer the solution I posted in "How To Defeat Al Qaeda". But I think we are running out of time, especially considering AQ's announced intentions and the unstable situation in nuclear Pakistan.
It is also true that America is partly to blame for the mess we are in. I have long and frequently argued that we should never have fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. We should have "minded our own business" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
But we cannot turn back the hands of time, and we do not live in an ideal world. We have to deal with the world as it is today, not as it might have been.
So far, we have tried to avoid collateral damage. We have used "smart bombs". We have allowed people around the world to finance terrorism without paying a price. We have allowed a hateful ideology to spread, and now it threatens our very existence. So, it is now a time for real war. On our terms, not on the enemy's terms. A war we will win. But first, we need to take off the gloves. Innocent people do die in wars. The sooner we realize this, the sooner even more innocent people will survive to live another day.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Should We Fear Al Qaeda?
Re Op-Ed Columnist: Fearing Fear Itself by Paul Krugman in today's NY Times:
I mostly agree with Mr. Krugman on his assessment of the leading Republican candidates. But where I disagree with him is in his assessment of Al Qaeda.
The consensus in the American Intelligence Community is that Al Qaeda (AQ) intends to detonate a WMD somewhere in the United States (probably Manhattan or the District of Columbia), just as soon as it is capable of carrying out such an attack.
I agree with Michael Scheuer (author of "Imperial Hubris") that about 90% of AQ are insurgents, and only about 10% are the terrorists who would execute such an attack on us.
Nevertheless, even if the probability were "low", the fact that AQ is determined to use WMDs against the US is something to worry about, especially considering the precarious state of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
It is easy to imagine one or more nukes falling into the hands of Osama bin Laden (OBL). After all, it is very likely that Islamist elements within the government or military or intelligence services of Pakistan are AQ sympathizers who are involved in hiding and/or protecting OBL inside Pakistan itself. Why else would OBL still be on the loose 6 long years after 9/11?
Therefore, with all due respect to Krugman, he is wrong about the threat of terror. But the GOP candidates are wrong about how we should deal with it.
I mostly agree with Mr. Krugman on his assessment of the leading Republican candidates. But where I disagree with him is in his assessment of Al Qaeda.
The consensus in the American Intelligence Community is that Al Qaeda (AQ) intends to detonate a WMD somewhere in the United States (probably Manhattan or the District of Columbia), just as soon as it is capable of carrying out such an attack.
I agree with Michael Scheuer (author of "Imperial Hubris") that about 90% of AQ are insurgents, and only about 10% are the terrorists who would execute such an attack on us.
Nevertheless, even if the probability were "low", the fact that AQ is determined to use WMDs against the US is something to worry about, especially considering the precarious state of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
It is easy to imagine one or more nukes falling into the hands of Osama bin Laden (OBL). After all, it is very likely that Islamist elements within the government or military or intelligence services of Pakistan are AQ sympathizers who are involved in hiding and/or protecting OBL inside Pakistan itself. Why else would OBL still be on the loose 6 long years after 9/11?
Therefore, with all due respect to Krugman, he is wrong about the threat of terror. But the GOP candidates are wrong about how we should deal with it.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
No More Bushes Or Clintons - Right Now!
After the carnage brought on America by two Bushes and one Clinton, we can only hope that Hillary Clinton's luck runs out and somehow she either loses the Democratic nomination or drops out of the race.
I wish we could turn back the clock to 1988, but that is pure fantasy.
My fear is that Hillary becomes President, with Bill Clinton advising her on foreign policy. That could only lead us into a prolonged "War on Terror", since she would not have the balls to pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and like her husband, would be afraid to kill Osama bin Laden even if he were in our sights, since she and Bill would greatly fear collateral damage.
I firmly believe that the Bushes and Clintons have already damaged America enough. Hillary should not be elected President on that basis alone.
If I may indulge in another fantasy, I would like to see Dick Cheney resign and be replaced by any intelligent, non-ideological adult American. Once that switch is secure, George W. Bush would do the smartest, most patriotic thing of his life, and also resign.
When a corporate CEO screws up big-time, he is forced to resign (even though, sadly, he usually gets a gigantic severance package). Since Bush is our first MBA President, and likes to think of himself as a businessman (his fantasy) he ought to do the only honorable thing after so many painful years of incomprehensible incompetence: resign.
I have written many posts (and will continue to write more in the same vein) criticizing the worst president in the history of the United States, so there is no reason for me to list here all of Bush's mistakes. However, I am compelled to reiterate one mistake which by itself is sufficient to call for his resignation: his failure to kill or capture Osama bin Laden (OBL).
Not even Nazi Germany or its ally, militaristic Japan, was able to attack the mainland of the US, never mind get away with it. That OBL is still breathing is a grievous insult to our forefathers and to every man or woman who ever fought for our great nation.
The blood of every American who ever died or was wounded in any battle pre-9/11 or on 9/11 demands that we defeat Al Qaeda and get OBL. Bush failed at this, and failed miserably. He should resign ASAP.
I wish we could turn back the clock to 1988, but that is pure fantasy.
My fear is that Hillary becomes President, with Bill Clinton advising her on foreign policy. That could only lead us into a prolonged "War on Terror", since she would not have the balls to pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and like her husband, would be afraid to kill Osama bin Laden even if he were in our sights, since she and Bill would greatly fear collateral damage.
I firmly believe that the Bushes and Clintons have already damaged America enough. Hillary should not be elected President on that basis alone.
If I may indulge in another fantasy, I would like to see Dick Cheney resign and be replaced by any intelligent, non-ideological adult American. Once that switch is secure, George W. Bush would do the smartest, most patriotic thing of his life, and also resign.
When a corporate CEO screws up big-time, he is forced to resign (even though, sadly, he usually gets a gigantic severance package). Since Bush is our first MBA President, and likes to think of himself as a businessman (his fantasy) he ought to do the only honorable thing after so many painful years of incomprehensible incompetence: resign.
I have written many posts (and will continue to write more in the same vein) criticizing the worst president in the history of the United States, so there is no reason for me to list here all of Bush's mistakes. However, I am compelled to reiterate one mistake which by itself is sufficient to call for his resignation: his failure to kill or capture Osama bin Laden (OBL).
Not even Nazi Germany or its ally, militaristic Japan, was able to attack the mainland of the US, never mind get away with it. That OBL is still breathing is a grievous insult to our forefathers and to every man or woman who ever fought for our great nation.
The blood of every American who ever died or was wounded in any battle pre-9/11 or on 9/11 demands that we defeat Al Qaeda and get OBL. Bush failed at this, and failed miserably. He should resign ASAP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)