Tommy Franks has already declared that when the next attack occurs (remember it's not if, but WHEN), then the Constitution will be tossed out and Martial Law will be declared. FEMA has enough gulags, oops camps, to handle any victims or protesters; already the American public is used to having their guns confiscated and being fired or imprisoned under various laws in Patriot Act I & II for any sort of disapproval of Bush. Since it would be difficult for American soldiers to do domestic law enforcement under such conditions (C.O.'s), and we are also already accustomed to Mexican and other foreign troops being on our soil, I would guess that they would be our Guards.

Under the Patriot Act, Bush can suspend elections and pull a Haffez al-Assad by essentially declaring himself President for life.

It definitely would be an excuse to drop the big one on either Iran or Syria. Most MEers believe Iran is expendible considering they are all blasphemous Shias, but an attack on Syria could result in a backlash by Egypt against Israel. The rest of the Islamic world could get ticked off and bankrupt the US by finalizing the Islamic gold dinar and demanding gold for oil. Since Venezuela is feeling a little paranoid (especially in this period), it wouldn't be difficult for the Arab countries to convince OPEC to hold back oil and sell to China (which more than a month ago set the RMB to Malaysia's standard, including the gold dinar). We'd be screwed with our fiat system and Bush and his cronies would get rich. Shaikh Robertson would charge up his campaign against the great satan Hugo Chavez. There would be a lot of fascist flag-waving and people chiming "Proud to be an American" though most won't remember what it really means to be American.

Sorry, I've been up for almost 40 hours now and am feeling a little cynical. As ugly as it seems, it isn't an unrealistic scenario.

For Tommy Franks: link please, or quote.

FEMA and gulags: Surely you jest. Aren't we hearing about how incompetent FEMA is? Yet they are competent enough to set up gulags? Please.

You're going to have to give me chapter and verse of the Patriot Act for the Hafez Al Asad comment. And why do you think the Generals would just roll over for that one?

As for your second paragraph, I'm pretty sure that a good bit of the RMB is still pegged to the dollar. I think the basket of currencies includes others but is still largely dollarized. Perhaps another reader can help there.

I don't really understand how flag-waving is fascist. I think you confuse nationalism and patriotism. I think this is a frequent mistake among Europeans too, because the scars from their own nationalistic days have never healed fully.

Flag-waving is patriotic, but that's it. I think if one took a hundred different flag-wavers, or "Support the Troops" yellow ribbon magnet bearers, and asked them more than three questions about any political issue, their consensus would quickly break down. This is a stark contrast to the kind of rigid thinking that is enforced in a totalitarian society. Any arguments you have in your above paragraphs are demeaned and cheapened when you compare flag-waving to fascism. It just ain't so.

It seems you are now the resident conspiracy-theorist here at TAOC. Certainly serves to spice the place up a bit.

I think Helprin overstates his case, or maybe I'm not sure just what the case he's trying to make is. Fundamentally, I think the strategic plan in which taking down Iraq was one major step was correct. The biggest mistake was the assumption that there would exist some sort of civil state independent of the Saddam/Baathist regime; if this was the case, then the initial force size would likely have been sufficient. What happened, though, unsurprisingly enough, was that there was hardly any civil state independent of the Baathist regime, and further, what there was was under assault, both systematic by those "former regime elements" and retributive. In this case, the available force would have to be insufficient until enough other troop sources could be deployed. Since the U.S. Army is not about to triple in size, that meant Iraqis themselves. That process seems to be coming along.

As to Helprin's gendarmerie critique, I admit to being sympathetic to Barnett's SysAdmin-Leviathan distinction. I also don't see the imminent China threat that Helprin rises; in my estimation, that's 15-30 years away, and we're a couple generations of weapon systems ahead. Fundamentally, I think Helprin's one of those trying to sell a national greatness conservatism that doesn't work. Still, this deserves a longer, more thoughtful response, and I'm too wasted right now to give that, nor have I even started on a response to another disaster.

During the Cold War, the nuclear threat to the United States was deterred by the prospect of massive retaliation. The essence of massive retailiation was that anyone who launched a nuclear attack on the United States would "lose everything." That was sufficient to deter all nation states.

In fashioning a credible doctrine of deterence for a terrorist organization like al Qaida, the first question we should ask is what does the word "everything" mean to the terrorists? Mecca? The holy cities of Iran? The Islamic World? All are possibilities, but I think there might be something else that matters more to the terrorists -- the family and the tribe.

Col. Peters pointed out in his essay on the warning signs of failed states that in such states loyalty to the family, clan, and tribe was put before loyalty to country. That suggests preservation of family and tribe is considered move important than preservation of country to islamic terrorists -- who are striking for their like of nationalist sentiments.

Several years after the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was reputed to have said he could no longer rely on the Baath Party to sustain him, so he turned to his extended family. (Whether he actually said it or not, he clearly moved in that direction; at the end his closest advisors included his two pathologically violent sons.)

What this suggests is we should consider a doctrine of retaliation that targets families and tribes rather than nation-states. It might be interestesting to see what would happen if, for example, the U.S. were to respond to a WMD attack in an American city with formal declarations of war against the tribes in Pakistan and Afghanistan believed to be sheltering bin Laden -- and followed it up with all out war on those tribes.

This approach might be called, for lack of a better term, limited massive retaliation, which is massive retaliation directed at a more sharply defined than a nation-state.

I think this approach might have a greater deterent value than broad spectrum massive retaliation. If a tribe is annihilated for harboring bin Laden, it will probably have a greater deterrent effect on the surviving tribes than destorying the cities of a nation-state that the tribes have only nominal loyalty to. The message is that they, not the nation, could lose everything.

If the U.S. declares war on a tribe, it is much more intimidating than if it declares war on the tribe's nation. The tribe realizes it can no longer slip under the radar -- and that the nation to which it has only nominal loyalty might view it as expendible. This would dramatically raise the price of both sheltering terrorists and, more broadly, engaging in Jihad against the United States.

I suspect the typical jihadi from bin Laden on down doesn't much care if any particular Islamic government lves or dies, and doesn't really believe the U.S. could actually destroy the Islamic world in a nuclear holocaust, even if it had the will to do so (which it probably doesn't). But I suspect they could easily be made to believe that the U.S. would be prepared to erase their family, tribe, and clan from the planet if sufficiently provoked. To a person who is much more at home in traditional societies than a nation-state, that's a much more believeable definition of losing everything". That might be the beginning of deterence.

Paul, Islam CAN be destroyed. It would be pretty easy, actually. Read up on the '5 pillars of Islam'. Muslims have to pray 5 times per day while bowing to Mecca and they have to Pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their life. Nuke Mecca and it doesn't exist. There goes 2 pillars.
On a slight less environmentally damaging level, Bomb EVEY mosque. Another pillar is tithing. You cant give alms to what no longer exists. On a more practical level, the CIA knows which Imams preach Jihad and could most likly find out which ones provide financial support for terrorists. Make a list and publish it and let ALL muslims know that every time there is an Islamic terrorist attack, the following Friday during the mid morning Prayer a 2,000 JDAM will hit one mosque off of that list for every terrorist attack. Tit for tat. 3rd worlders understand that stuff. The Imams live off the money collected during prayer metings and the Friday mid morning is the biggy. So the ones preaching Jihad won't get the audiance that those not preaching Jihad get. Or the money.

But Wait! there's more. Iraq only makes military sense as a precursor for Iran. If we don't use Military force in Iran, then Iraq was a waste of resources. Iran is perfectly willing to fight to the last Iraqi. As long as there is an Iran for the G's to use for staging, R&R and a munitions dump, nothing will change in Iraq.
It is NOT possible to defeat guerrillas so long as they have external support. Lacking that support, guerrillas hardly ever win. It is the single most important factor in Guerrilla Warfare.
All Iran has to do is keep throwing bodies into the fire and wait for America to leave. Then a dozen or so divisions come rolling acoss the border. No American president is going to order the Choppers full of fleeing GI's to turn around and go back.

Tom,

I think you are right about China. It will be 15-30 years before they are anything like a competitor. We will have to keep our R&D in tip-top shape between now and then of course.

Paul,

Very interesting point of view on attacking a tribe or clan. I wonder: why not do this now? If the President can declare that any state which harbors terrorists will be treated like those terrorists, then why can't a tribe which harbors them? My guess is that we aren't using this concept in the Hindu Kush because of sensitivities to preserving our relationship with Pakistan.

Stehpinkeln,

I think you mischaracterize the nature of the Iranian support for the insurgency. Given geography, ethnicity, religion, and political sympathies, I think a much stronger case can be made that Syria is the true outside sponsor -- or if not the state of Syria, then elements that currently find refuge there.

I think long before the US leaves Iraq, we will have trained the Iraqi forces to a standard high enough to repel any kind of Iranian attack. And I'll be surprised if we "flee" Iraq (to use your term) without leaving behind at least a division for, say, the next 20 years. For training purposes for us and them, at the minimum, if for nothing else.

Well I think it all depends on what kind of attack. Many of you like minded guys will probably say I'm stating the obvious here, but I'll comment on how I think each would be received. I'll break the attack down into 3 types: Small, along the size London; Moderate, something like 9/11; and Large, Nuclear, Chemical or Biological destruction of an American city.

With a small attack I think we’d have more of the same general approach. The Left will wail for appeasement of course but won’t have the popular support for an impeachment. Without a state sponsor of the attacks we won’t be able to respond. There will be more rhetoric and threats, but probably not even a change in deployments or size of the standing Army. The general line will be that this is an unfortunate bump in the road, we should “stay the course,” or turn the other check if you will.

It’s with the second attack that things get most interesting. Someone must pay. Again. There will still be those on the left that will try to say this shows how we’ve been wrong all along, but nobody will pay any attention to them. The calls for impeachment will come from all parts of the spectrum, though not all for the same reasons, and I would think its certainly possible Bush could be impeached. Complaints from the Right will be that we haven’t been harsh enough to this point and most of the Center will would join this group. The anti-American Left will still want to appease the enemy but those Left-of-Center will attack the administrations ‘unilateral approach’ and lack of UN help so far. More of the same basically. An attack to the scale of another 9/11 will again shift the political center to the left for some time. The current administration or the one replacing it will have the political mandate necessary for large scale mobilization. Hawkish folks like Chester and me will drop everything and join up as soon as possible. I predict that Syria and Iran will be neutralized and perhaps given a short period of time to surrender before hand. A few tactical nukes wouldn’t be out of the question. I don’t think martial law would be necessary outside the affected area.

With a Large WMD attack I agree with Wretchard’s ‘Three Conjectures’. (Mandatory reading BTW) If it’s a repeatable attack it’s the end of Islam. In any case the capitols of Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia at a minimum will be razed. North Korea will be given a chance to surrender. The Russians might take the opportunity to radiate Chechnya. Its very different world at this point and I don’t have the imagination to picture it.



Looking forward to everyone else’s thoughts,

Phil



P.S. I met several of you at the Houston gathering but this is my first post and probably not my last.

Our military moves are pretty much shot in the case of another attack. That is, there are no overt enemies, and the stuff about Iran and Syria is just an attempt to do Israel's bidding. Those countries have done nothing to us in years and won't for obvious reasons. Iran's last hurrah, and Syria's too, was in '82 when our forces were in Lebanon, and even that was through proxies. AQ operates independently of these countries through transnational networks and domestic fifth columnists.

I should think it would be time to rethink our "go on the offensive" strategy at that point. Clausewitz points out that defensive campaigns are always easier, more effective, and have a greater bang for the buck than offensive ones. I think the proper response to another attack, and what should have been the response last time, is a serous reexamination of our border security and immigration policies. Unlike Israel, we do not have to live alongside this problem due to our geography; the enemy has no power projection capability but for our leaky borders. The best response to the next attack would be to revamp and expand the border patrol, reduce the number of legal immigrants to a more managable (and monitorable) level, and to accept that non-western people, in particular from the Middle East, do nothing but endanger an otherwise coherent society.

Another attack will likely foment the rise of a new, nationalist, isolationist, and populist political movement that either takes members from both parties or mounts a coup of sorts against the establishment, pro-open-borders Republicans. Let's hope that salutary response is in the works, if another unfortunate and likely inevitable attack takes place.

Chester, In the event of a 2nd AQ attack on the US, I don't see a serious move to impeach Bush. The liberal critics will have lost any gound arguing for a softer approach to the GWOT, & Bush would act decisively and agressively in the immediate aftermath. But would he act wisely?

Suppose the attack involves a WMD & 100's of thousands of US citizens are killed. Would the US respond with nuclear weapons and where? Paul Danish (above) makes an interesting comment about targeting tribes which are protecting AQ, and I would enlarge that concept by including in the "tribes" all the terrorist state & non-state players, (i.e. Syria, Iran, Hezbollah). Surely a few nukes dropped along Waziristan would be the end of Osama. But the options for reponse aren't simply nuclear or conventional, it could be both depending on the target. Drop nukes on Iranian nuclear & military facilities, but use conventional bombs on regime facilities in major cities. The Iraninan people would be left with enough to take out the rest of their hated gov't.

Bombing Mecca has no military value what so ever, and would have a very unpredictable social/political/religious effect on the world's Muslims, to say the least. Which raises the question of how to deal with Saudi Arabia? A direct attack on SA would trigger the active hostility of every muslim in the world, including nuclear Pakistan. Perhaps a strongly encouraged coup by reformist elements in SA against AQ supporters. Tell King Abdullah no more pussy-footing now it's time to go for it. In my opinion we should be doing that now.

WWII style internment of the US Muslim population is very unlikely, but large scale arrests of potential bad-guys (i.e. suspected imams & military age youths) is likely. The response of the general population toward Muslims is likely to be much more hostile this time. For all the catterwalling about islamophobia in America post 9-11, Muslims in the US are still treated better than Christians or, Allah forbid, Jews are treated in most muslim countries even on a good day.

And Chester, I agree 100%, the US public has to be told the nation really is at war, not some limited go-shopping-life-is-normal-half-assed action.

I'm not so sure about how viable an impeachment would be after a medium to large scale attack. Traditionally, the nation has rallied around its political leaders after any attack, both foreign and domestic. It is hard for me to come up with the offense that the President would be charged with after such attack. I'm sure some politicians would try to make hay from an attack but impeachment sounds fairly far fetched. Unless of course it comes out that the President conspired with Israel to blow up the World Trade Center (which anyone who has ever watched Iranian TV knows is a fact)

Paul, Isn't eradicating the supporting tribe exactly what we did to the Taliban?

I'll have to address all these thoughts later, but for a moment, the way I see an impeachment happening is through the meme of "Bush has failed us! He didn't stop the attack! He is incompetent!"

Dear Sirs,

There are two options to deter terrorism: occupy the terrorist spawning states or get them to police their own people. We have demonstrated, in a most convincing way, that the first option is real and imminent. This is, I believe, the reason for the abrupt changes in many states: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya,...

As to the threat of WMD: the only real threat is a nuclear explosion. Chernobyl, the ultimate dirty bomb - orders of magnitude more radioactive material than obtainable or deployable by terrorists - directly killed less than 50 people. The long term premature deaths have an upper limit of 4,000. The Sarin gas attack in the Japanese subway was carried out by a well organised, well financed group of educated people. It was the ideal agent attack - enclosed areas to ensure concentration and no easy egress. They killed 8.

The demonstrated forensic abilities of the US and allies, including satellite images of all global movements, make hopes of deniabilty for a nuclear attack rather thin. Or we might get it wrong. Either way, it behooves governments to do everything in their power to prevent such an attack.

The wild card is Iran. Wild speculation: were the Iranians informed that Ronald Reagan's first official act would be to declare war?

Regards,

Roy

ROy - what about a biological attack? And I must dispute your claim the US has total global satelite survelance capability which would make deiability impossible. A bomb on a truck or a shipping container would be untraceable after it went off, since there would be nothing left of it, or anything else for some area around it.

No, for deterence to work, if it can it all, the policy must be retaliation against all possible supporters of the terrorists. If a nuke goes off in the port of LA, the US must not waste time trying to find out exactly who did it.

Chester, this post over at Regime Change Iran gives credence to Helprin’s assertion that our efforts so far have not convinced the Arab World that we are a force to fear. The whole thing is a good read but I’ll quote some interesting items below.



"Incredible though it may sound there are signs that Tehran may be preparing for a military confrontation with the United States, and has convinced itself that it could win."


…

"The first sign came last June with the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of the Islamic Republic, an event that completed the conquest of all levers of power by the most radical elements of the establishment.

Since then Iran Readying for Conflict With US the revolutionary factions have conducted a little publicized purge of the military, the security, the civil service, and state-owned corporations and media.

…
Among those replaced are the defense minister, the commander-in-chief of the regular army and his four deputies, 11 senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and five commanders of the paramilitary Mobilization of the Dispossessed.

…
the appointment of military officers to posts normally held by civilians, such as governors, mayors and directors of major public corporations."

…

"perhaps, the surest sign yet is the military build up under way in the five provinces bordering Iraq. The region, with a population of 20 millions, has been put under the control of the IRGC which has also taken over units of the regular army, including the 88th Division, and the border police. Iran is estimated to have 250,000 troops in the area, its biggest military build-up since the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988."

The post then goes on to piece together how the Mullahs think they would win the ensuing war. I think the war-gamed section at the end underestimates US power and overestimates US respect for the UN but its still an interesting read.

Dear Kenneth,

Biological attacks are even less of a problem than chemical attacks. First, the agent must be delivered in sufficient quantity and concentration to infect a large number of people. If it is a fast-acting toxin (e.g., Ebola) the hosts die before it can spread. Quarantine is extremely effective in preventing the spread of disease. Yes, some number of people might die. But all modern militaries have concluded that chemical and biological weapons are grossly inefficient and have a large blow-back risk.

As to deniability, think Dirty Harry. "Did I fire 5 times or 6 times? Feeling lucky? Go ahead, make my day". The slight chance that we find out the perp or simply guess wrong is sufficient to deter.

Regards,

Roy

Thanks for the info on bioweapons, but isn't anthrax a dangerous bioweapon? A few spores is all it takes to kill someone, and released in a confined area like a subway or mall it would expose many people (100's, but not 1000's) before we even know what happened. Blow-back is no concern to suicide bombing terrorists.

I agree with you about making sure the enemy knows we will respond overwhelmingly. If Pakistan & Iran know we will nuke them on the off-chance they were involved, they will be unlikely to help Al Qaeda with a nuke attack. So deterence has a role. Unfortunately, I don't see Al Qaeda being detered. Theirs is a nihilistic jihad which would welcome the destruction.

Dear Kenneth,

Anthrax must be "weaponized" to be effective. This is an extremely complicated and expensive process. The FBI latched on to Dr. Hatfield as a suspect not because they had any evidence but that he was the only one who had plausible access.

As gruesomley demonstrated by Oklahoma City, the African embassies, the USS Cole, Madrid, Bali and London explosives are cheap, easy to obtain and extremely effective. We are taking measures to prevent these kind of attacks but we cannot be 100% effective. This is the defensive component of security.

Another aspect of security is to find and deter those who would do us harm. This is problematic when they are outside of our jurisdiction. We can invade and occupy other countries or we can persuade them to police their own people. Thus, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The third leg of the triad is deterrence. It is of little use to threaten mass destruction because as the President of Iran has stated "we can destroy Israel with one bomb. It does not matter if a million Iranians are killed - Israel is destroyed". The only real deterrence is to convince these actors that they themselves face certain death if they attack us. Our fleet of 32 B-2 bombers can deliver more effective destruction (on-target and lethal) in 24 hours than ALL of our strategic bombing in WWII. Then there is the rest of our armed forces.

I cite the "Serenity Prayer":

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

It is a dangerous world. From the barbarians to 9/11 it is a dangerous world. Prayer wouldn't hurt.

Regards,

Roy

"Iranian military buildup"

The one lesson the world has now learned twice...is that there is not a standing Army in the world that stands a chance against the US military. The Iranians fought Saddam for 8 years to a stalemate. The US twice decimated Saddams Army in a matter of days.(Scattering the munitions in hopes of winning an insurgency was the only smart move Saddam made)

If the Iranians are changing military leaders, it is for internal security purposes.

Bombing Mecca will NOT erradicate Islam in the least bit; on the contrary, it would unite the Islamic world against the US. As far as the five pillars go, the kaaba is not an object of worship, it is a direction of worship; if it was knocked down, Muslims would still pray in the same direction just like they have when it was intentionally taken apart in order to build it up again. Hajj also includes many other rituals besides visiting the kaaba, and this pillar is required only conditionally anyway. Islam is more flexible and adaptable than most people realize. Even in Nordic countries Muslims fast Ramadan even though the sun either never sets or never rises some years.

As far as the obligatory poor-due, this has been the rallying call for an economic war against the IMF and World Bank since the international fiat monetary system is incompatable with Islamic economic theory and unacceptable for zakat, and is the source of much woe across the globe. The concensus across the Islamic world is that the fiat system is at fault for creating the Asian currency crises in the mid 90's. Ever since, Malaysia has been brewing up a hard blow to the US economy and the dollar by re-establishing the Islamic gold dinar. Instead of buckling under the destruction of a pillar of Islam, they are re-instituting it and using it for economic warfare.

On a different topic, yes there is a difference between nationalism and patriotism and JUST flag waving is not a fascist activity. However, the enormous outpouring of symbolic support by the mob in America mirrors the kind of frenzied, unquestioning support Hitler received for his policies. There is a reason this country was built as a Republic, and that was for the prevention of knee-jerk "mob rule" in case of a national crisis. Like the early years of Hitler's Germany, people have been sucked into believing that opposition to the post 9-11 national agenda is a form of treason. Unfortunately, this hostile pattern is being repeated again. It was so bad that most business owners who were Muslim or of ME descent posted flags on their windows to keep arsons and looters away. People lose all sight that dissent is a character of a democracy and that unquestioning obedience is a character of a dictatorship. Disagreeing with the President or ruling party for a legitimate reason may not seem very patriotic, but it is no less nationalistic than agreeing with them, and it is far less dangerous than mob rule.

Concerning the proofs of statements in an earlier post, I am still digging through my papers for the source of one of them; when I have found it I will post it all together.

Comments to all:

Phil: Yes -- good work on dileneating the different responses given different kinds of attacks. We were kind of skipping back and forth before that.

As far as taking on Syria and Iran with a middle size attack, the populace may be willing to support the enlargement of the armed forces to attempt that after a mid-sized attack, but I kind of wonder if that would work . . . on how to handle Iran, for example, I really like what Helprin had to say.

Yes -- remember you from Houston of course. Glad to have you back and commenting.

Roach: I'll be honest. I only know Clausewitz anecdotally and have not read On War in its entirety. But two things I know about defense vs. offense, per my instruction at The Basic School in Quantico: 1) you can't be strong everywhere in a defense. You have to take risk, and you have to choose where to be weak. 2) There must be a seamless integration between offensive and defensive measures. The rifle company set up in a hilltop defensive position must have a small force designated as a counter-attacking force to be committed at the right moment in repelling the assault. Moreover, an assault in which the attacker does not immediately fortify and prepare to defend his gains will be lost. The examples above become even more clear when considering the concept of the mobile defense, rather than a static one.

From a strategic standpoint, I say this to point out that while I'm all for increasing the size of the border patrol and more effectively securing the borders, I think that a throwback to preWWII isolationism is a mistake. I don't want to put words in your mouth, you may not have meant it that way; but transportation and communcations have shrunken the globe. I don't think we'll ever be safe by just withdrawing into our own borders.

And, did you really mean, "non-western people, in particular from the Middle East, do nothing but endanger an otherwise coherent society,"? I disagree completely.

Kenneth: I agree that bombing Mecca is not the best of ideas and would just piss them all off. Supporting radical changes in Saudi Arabia would be a great idea. We could certainly do more in that regard.

Paul: Another thought on "eradicating the supporting tribe:" I agree that it would probably be an effective strategy, but see some problems that would have to be overcome. Declaring war on a state is one thing; declaring war on a tribe or clan would seem like genocide to a lot of folks. How to handle that?

Kenneth and Roy: I agree with Roy on the difficulties of effectively employing bio and chem weapons. The central problem is how to disperse them without making the agents ineffective in the process. Ahh. This reminds me of living in Kuwait before the invasion.

Phil: I hope the Iranians invade Iraq. As soon as they get on one Iraqi highway, we can attrit them from the air. Hwy 6, which skirts the border inside Iraq, was given solely to air assets for the invasion. It was made a free-fire zone. We also convinced Saddam we were going that way, so he loaded it up with lots of armored units. Those are all gone now, thanks to the Air Force.

Well, I don't really hope they invade. That's just bluster. It would be a shame to kill so many young Persian men.

I think they may be prepping for a war with the US -- they have to be nervous -- but they probably plan to wage that war inside their own borders. They've certainly seen our difficulties in Iraq and learned from them.

Shellie: I'd like to learn more about Malaysia's currency adventures. Any links? I'll google.

Knock, knock. Hear that? Of course you don't. That's because no jack-booted brownshirts are at your door to take you away for opposing the Bush administration. Please. "frenzied, unquestioning support," "treason" for opposing Bush, "unquestioning obedience" to his policies? What country are you living in? Why didn't Bush order his goons to arrest all the talking heads who opposed his Katrina relief efforts? Why doesn't he just have them wait at the exit to the NBC studios and shoot anyone who appears on "Meet the Press"? Why is Al Franken still on the air, or Jon Stewart? Couldn't they all be "disappeared" without too much fuss? There's tons of opposition against Bush everywhere in case you haven't noticed. If we are to believe the press, that oppposition is increasing -- due to a variety of reasons -- not decreasing, due to secret police in our totalitarian, fascist state. How can you possibly square all that? While you answer, I promise I'm not calling the NSA right now. There's not a bird being retasked to fly over your house right now. And Barry Pepper is not about to burst into your living room.

Shellie,

Sorry that you have had to live through Nazi rule twice. That must make you pretty old. Or is it just that you extrapolate what you see in Leni Riefenstahl’s glorious film clips on the History Channel and just know how it was back then. If it isn’t the former, your choice of analogies has dropped your cred to zero.

Chester,

If Jihadi’s get hold of a real nuclear device from the black market, Pakistan, or Iran, my guess is that Israel will be the first target of choice. It might have to be a mid range missile delivery, but it would delight the Islamic world no end.

My guess is that anything less than a WMD attack on America would result in cranking up the conventional response somewhere in the world. I agree with an earlier comment that the current WOT should be already going after tribes. Remember GWB said that those who harbor terrorists were “with the terrorists” and not with us. We’ve obviously come a long way back from those tough words. The entire tribal areas of western Pakistan should have been turned into a parking lot long ago with wall to wall B-52 bombing. We should have long ago moved across the Iraqi border into Syria. And Iran is fast becoming the North Korea of the Middle East.

Any nuclear attack anywhere near the Middle East will surely shut down oil production and exporting. That’s when our economy will get really fun. I think that the lack of a strong national program to develop alternative energy vehicles is tantamount to a national economic catastrophe. Imagine New Orleans on a national scale. And what about the potential security implications of not securing the southern border? Impeachment? Yeah, I’d go for it. But how can you impeach GWB when his term has expired and the next prez ain’t doing nothing either. So I assume we’d be impeaching him (or her in the case of Hillary). Hey, wouldn’t that be cool…the only husband and wife presidents that were both impeached.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating impeaching the President in the event of another attack. Just saying that it is entirely possible that others will, and that it might have some significant momentum.

Chester, I didn't mean to suggest that the US would actually lose to Iran, just that the Iranian Mullahs think they would win the fight. My point was that we failed with Helprin's goal to convince Iran and the rest of the middle east of our capability and ferocity.

Dear Sammy and Chester,

Actually, I used to live in Syria and have spent enough time in Damascus that soldiers with machine guns on at least every other street corner *almost* became normal to me (what a scary thought). By January 1999 the Syrian and Baathists flags were hanging on every street corner along with more than just a few extra portraits of Hafez al-Assad. During that time Syrians literally PARTIED and celebrated their "victory" over Israel (though I couldn't figure that one out) in addition to the so-called "election" of al-Assad as president for life. The place was manic. I also spent almost a year in Riyadh.

I was happy to move back to the US the following December in hopes of some normalcy, but by February my phone was being tapped AGAIN (it also used to be recorded from Dec 1996 through May 1997). In November 2001 I got a knock-knock on the door, not by brown shirts, but by polite FBI agents in white oxfords and ties.

The US Geological Survey did a fly-by and has what they believe to be a picture of my house (though it is 3 houses off) on its website. Yours is most likely on their too. Ned Bunn at DHS in Cleveland knows me by name, and the FBI has my fingerprints. Also, a banking error resulted in my immediate contact by the Secret Service as well in November 2004.

So, I have lived under at least one idiotic monarchy, one totalitarian regime, and one American administration that for all practical purposes appears to be heading towards a police state.

And Chester, I'm not too concerned about you calling the NSA. As best I know, they probably already know who I am.

Phil,

I know. Just saying I'm not too worried about them doing much to us, just to their own people.

Shellie,

See my email.

Shellie,

So what do you think got you on some sort of "high risk" list, if I may ask.

I don't know about the USGS, but Google satellite images shows my house in pretty good resolution. And the government not only has my fingerprints, they also have "fingerprints" of both feet.

I guess I worry more about commercial data miners more than the bureaucracy. But then I never ran afoul of the U.S. Government on any security related issues. You surely realize that the higher the standard of security we demand, the more the restrictive rules will come into play. Too bad there's not a formula or set of criteria that voters could select to choose which areas are high priority and what we are willing to endure to achieve top notch security in those areas. Then we would only have ourselves to blame if we chose poorly.

Sammy,

I completely understand why I am on everyone's snoop list, but what most Americans don't realize is that they too may be on the snoop list. But no one cares about the laws being created and the rights being taken away because the mentality is "if it doesn't affect me, I don't care". The shame of it is while all of this is being done in the name of "safety", NOTHING is going to make anyone safer. Library records, phone taps, bank statements, security cameras, GPS systems in your car... London proved that it all doesn't work. But every day laws are being drafted to make it treason if your peaceful demonstration blocks traffic (in Oregon), sovereign Indian reservations are being raided by the feds to confiscate records of out-of-state cigarette sales so the states can claim taxes (in New York), and in Michigan there is a law that you can be fired if someone in your household smokes. I am not endorsing smoking; the point is, this one small step makes us one step closer to believing this is normal. Tomorrow there will be another, and the next day another.. each affecting a small portion of the population, and as long as no one is talking about it, no one will know about it until one day it smacks them in the face and they realize it's too late. I really do believe that the US is becoming a police state. It may or may not come with tanks rolling down the highway, but eventually everything about you will be recorded- where you live, where you work, who you talk to, what you eat, where you shop, who you talk to on the phone, what route you take to a friend's house, what medications you are taking... It will all come innocently, like so many civilian discoveries that later get used for war. It comes in the form of credit cards, supermarket and drug store discount cards, your social security number, and soon biometric passports and a national identity card. If they can get the technology right and develope an energy source, soon we may have RFID tags injected into us. I'm sure it will start as a wonderful idea- "Never lose Johnny at the mall again!" We already use it on dogs. Insurance companies will help you save on rates by proving a good driving record with an automobile "black box", pharmacies can check for drug incompatibilities.. the benefits are infinite, so long as you sell your freedom to the system.

The average Londoner is photographed over 300 times a day by security cameras. I wouldn't be surprised if soon the US looks like Singapore, with little cameras even in the public restrooms. Internment camps aren't new, we've done that before. And for those of you who think I may be missing a few screws and doubt the military could be used for civilian law enforcement, I have one question to ask: what do you call what happened in New Orleans? What do you call aiming guns at American citizens and not letting them out of the Superdome? Is it really "for their own good"? Why are foreign troops on US soil? Slowly, bit by bit, we are being conditioned into this way of life, and the US foreign policy is what's causing the attacks which are being used to scare us into a new system. Yet we're all looking half way around the world trying to figure out how to instill democracy from the top-down onto a people who are convinced we are from the devil.

Shellie,

The statement that NOTHING we do will make us any safer is nothing but an exclamation of frustration. As local police departments tell you, you can't make your house burglar proof, the more difficult you make it, the better the chance that they will go somewhere else. Likewise, the tougher we make it here, the more likely that an easier target will be hit, i.e Spain, London, etc. Just how much we are willing as a society to give up in total freedoms, well that is the ever changing question. What we accept today may change next year depending upon many conditions. I don't share your view that things will inevitably continue to creep towards a police state. The opposite end of the spectrum is being litigated more and more by our fine crop of lawyers who will file suits at the drop of a hat. And things are always being challenged in court. I have a little more faith that, even though things can get temporarily stretched one way a little too far, there will be a counterforce that will naturally bring things back the other way in due time. Its the rush to move too fast that can cause friction. Large swings take time to make noticable movement. Relax but stay informed.

Shellie,

The statement that NOTHING we do will make us any safer is nothing but an exclamation of frustration. As local police departments tell you, you can't make your house burglar proof, the more difficult you make it, the better the chance that they will go somewhere else. Likewise, the tougher we make it here, the more likely that an easier target will be hit, i.e Spain, London, etc. Just how much we are willing as a society to give up in total freedoms, well that is the ever changing question. What we accept today may change next year depending upon many conditions. I don't share your view that things will inevitably continue to creep towards a police state. The opposite end of the spectrum is being litigated more and more by our fine crop of lawyers who will file suits at the drop of a hat. And things are always being challenged in court. I have a little more faith that, even though things can get temporarily stretched one way a little too far, there will be a counterforce that will naturally bring things back the other way in due time. Its the rush to move too fast that can cause friction. Large swings take time to make noticable movement. Relax but stay informed.

Stehpinkeln,

I agree with you that the United States has the capacity to destroy Islam in an afternoon. I have real doubts, however, as to whether the jihadists actually believe that we do. If they don’t, then the nuclear threat may fail to deter them. I also have real doubts as to whether a U.S. President would be prepared to launch a Gibraltar to Mindanao nuclear strike, and, more important, I think the jihadists doubt that too, in which case the nuclear threat is an even smaller deterrent to them.
The question is: What are the jihadists afraid to lose, and can they be convinced that we are ready and willing to destroy it? What do they value to the point where they would abandon the pursuit of martyrdom in order to preserve it? They certainly value mosques, but will the prospect of the mass destruction of mosques deter martyrdom operations or incite them? In most of the Islamic world, loyalty to family, clan, and tribe and the social and political relationships that flow from that loyalty pre-date Islam, and, I suspect, it is the only thing in the Islamic world that, at the end of the day, would be prized ahead of Islam.

Chester,

I agree that there’s no reason why we couldn’t start targeting tribes immediately. I’m frankly surprised we haven’t done this aggressively and openly in Iraq (never mind Afghanistan), where there are tribal fissures beginning to appear in the Sunni resistance that cry out to be exploited. By now we probably have a pretty good idea of which tribes are supplying the largest numbers of resistance fighters and are providing them with the most sustenance.
I suspect the reason we’re not doing it in Pakistan-Afghanistan is not so much Pakistani sensibility as the fact that the Pak government is participating in the war just enough to stay our hand. Still, I think it would be interesting to intimate that we are considering the option.
The norm in the Islamic world seems to be that governments can’t control their tribes and the tribes won’t control their excitable boys. The proper response to this should be to tell the governments that we will be conducting a private war to the death against those tribes and that, while a good faith effort will be made to maintain battlefield tidiness, collateral damage will be a secondary consideration. This is no way would preclude a strategy deterring NBC terrorism based on massive retaliation directed at the sub-national groupings that are the well-springs of jihad. It would probably make it more credible.

I also agree with you that, by some definitions at least, targeting a tribe for massive retaliation would be genocide. However, the question under discusssion is how to respond to a putative WMD strike on one or more American cities. Wouldn't such attacks also meet the definition of genocide or at least be properly described as genocidal in nature? Wouldn't a retaliatory nuclear strike on one or more cities in countries that sustain the terrorists also genocide, or at least genocidal?

The essence of the concept of "nuclear deterrence" is using the threat of genocide to deter genocide. That's what MAD was all about. It's morally dirty, but the dirty little secret of the Cold War is that it worked. We didn't blow ourselves to glory, or even fight to the death, which has been the usual outcome when the world has previously divided into hostile camps.(Kennedy was really on to something when he spoke of the Cold War as a long twilight struggle. It was not only fought in the political twilight, but the moral twilight as well.)

The real question isn't whether a threat of nuclear retaliation against a tribe is genocide -- it's close enough for government work -- but whether such a threat is more likely to deter jihadists from embarking on a private nuclear war than the threat of attacking nation-states or cities, which also involves genocide. The real objection is to the concept of deterence by retaliation itself. Personally, I think abandoning the concept retaliation will make an attack more likely -- much more likely. And that would really be immoral.

Shellie,

You stated that the bombing in the London Underground proves surveilance doesn't work. That is incorrect. It only proves it's not perfect. The dozens of terrorists the British security services have arrested and the plots they have stopped proves security does work, most of the time.

Targetting "tribes" who support terrorists doesn't equate to genocide. Tribalism is a system of survival developed over millenia. You punish the bad guys and reward the good guys. When the tribal elders see this is the only choice, and the choice is made stark enough, they will join on. This approach is starting to work in Iraq & Afghanistan (if not consistantly yet).

I wonder if the Iranians really are as fanatical as their pronouncements suggest. If they truly believe they could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel, they are deluded. There is no guarantee an Iranian missile would be on target, or that it wouldn't be intecepted. Israel has long held a policy of overwhelimg retaliation. With her bombers, ground launched ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and 3 nuclear missile submarines & an estimated 150 to 200 nukes, they have enough power to obliterate Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia & Egypt in one awful day. The result would be over 100 million Muslim casualties.

I realize that what interests most readers at this blog is the military aspect of the "war on terror". I’m not in the military, so I can’t really comment on a lot of what is going on strategically but I can at least try to provide some insight into the other side of the coin.

Islamic cultural is cyclical. What has now become almost common knowledge, Islam is as much a "way of life" as it is a religion. While the religious part of Islam is fairly rigid, the "way of life" part is flexible. There are very few commands and a whole lot of guidelines. Usually there is a "minimum acceptable" guideline and a "maximum acceptable" guideline when it comes to most of the details. How Islamic culture is practiced fluctuates almost generationally between the two extremes. Once one generation pulls too far to either of the extremes at the expense of other ideals, scholars from the next generation emphasize what is being neglected at the expense of what is being over-practiced, which causes the culture to be pulled back into the middle. If allowed to continue, the culture will drift into the opposite extreme and then once again get pulled back towards the center by scholars of the next generation. Historically different regions and cities of the Islamic world were never really in sync with each other with regards to this.

What is happening now with the rise of "extremism" is just the next period of the cycle. It appears shockingly drastic this time around for a number of reasons:

1)Western culture has changed drastically in the last few generations, and thus so has the point of reference.

2)Technology and communications have allowed the far reaches of the Islamic world to communicate and spread ideas a lot faster between themselves, and have allowed them to become in sync so that the cycle has gone from a local phenomenon to a global phenomenon.

3)Globalization has threatened the Islamic identity. In an effort to make up for this, some areas have become even more tribal which in most cases has increased the practice of nepotism and hence, corruption. For the fundamentalists who denounce racial and national pride, they have made up for it by establishing theocratic tribes.

4)The gap between the rich and poor has been growing, and extreme poverty has increased. From what we know from history over and over again 1) the gap between the rich and poor and the exploitation of the poor causes friction, and 2) poverty breeds unity.

5)The discovery of oil and the enormous wealth it generated along with a record-breaking influx of outside ideas and values has thrown the Islamic society in a spin (especially in the gulf states). There just hasn’t been enough time to absorb it all.

What we are left with is a whole generation who has either been attracted by the new ideas and who are eager to acquire a new identity, or they feel they are losing their identity and loathe anything non-traditional. The lightening-fast change in society has wreaked havoc: young Saudi men born in the 70’s grew up spoiled rotten by material things but literally neglected by mothers out shopping at the malls. No guidance from their elders could possibly have prepared them for what they were to experience now. They grew up believing the money would always be there, that everything would be easy. But now so many are unemployed, have a lousy education, and are left with no way to fulfill the basic cultural expectations such as getting married. The more fortunate make it to the West where they meet either Western girls or Muslim girls. In Saudi Arabia this has caused a crisis because there aren’t enough single men for Saudi women, and in order to prove a young man’s ability to take care of a family (especially those who haven’t been fortunate to get an education in the West), the fathers of the prospective brides are demanding astronomical dowries starting from at least $50,000-100,000. What is left is a whole lot of bratty, naïve, frustrated, angry, bored, lost, and confused men who aren’t bound by any kind of social responsibility and have no way to cope with their situations.

These men feel betrayed by the fast-paced modern society, and it becomes their enemy. Tangible excuses to hate modern society and the Western world which has brought it over (such as much of American foreign policy) affirm the hatred. Their psyches are affected by the communal inferiority complex which has plagued the Islamic world since the destruction of the Caliphate and the planting of a Zionist state. They become chronic victims. They become dazzled by the romantic histories of classical Islam. All it takes is one charismatic, manipulative cult leader to channel that hatred and insecurity. If you add that to the natural cultural cycle which has been moving in a more strict direction, you get one really big mess.

From what I have seen though, there has been a slow dissolving of the over-the-top elements of Islamic fundamentalism, at least in the West. About 5 years ago the community of Ahlus-Sunnah wa Jama’a in the UK split. Muslims from the ultra-conservative community in Birmingham left and have joined the more fundamental but less conservative community in London. The theological tribal war is waning as the ranks in Birmingham are shrinking (though becoming more over the top) and the Muslims in London have stopped taking it personally. It made its way across the Atlantic into the mosques of East Orange NJ, Falls Church VA, Detroit, Chicago, and Houston. The Quran and Sunnah Society literally imploded from its own weight, and moderate Salafis left. There are a few hard-core members of these organizations who have stuck around but they have become almost ostracized and no one gives them any attention.

The point I am making is that radical, militant Islam is at its apex. It’s going to stick around for a while but not going to get any worse even though its ranks are still growing. What the US has to learn is that ATTENTION IS POWER. Every time they can instigate an attack against them, they become greater victims and get more sympathy. Every time they are attacked, their victim status is validated and the ranks grow. They are like a 2-year old who finds when he throws a tantrum that he gets what he wants. A smart adult would ignore it the first time around and not give in. The US's policy on NOT giving in to terrorists is based on that idea. Unfortunately we are beyond that point. Now, the tantrums will go ON and ON and ON until until the kid either gets exhausted, distracted, or else forgets what he was screaming about.

Anything the US does (physically) to fight terrorists is only going to drag out the cooling down process. Anything the US does that angers them will just get the adrenaline pumping again and give them more stamina. It will also keep the attention on them, and give them more justification for their actions. If the US left them alone, eventually terrorists will get no results and no satisfaction from their activities and will quit. But the trick is to stop giving in! Terrorists get a lot of attention from the media, and quite frankly the media is just a tool that they use to manipulate public opinion and instill fear. When America stops fearing terrorists (who usually target other theocratic tribes on the other side of the planet anyway), it will find that it will have the upper hand. Our fear and their lack of it is their biggest weapon.

It really does not matter what happens in Iraq. The US could win some and lose some, or it could either win it all or lose it all and it would not matter as far as the war on terror goes. Terrorists already hijacked the cause. The US was stupid- it did away with one monster who at least had enough sense to keep things clamped down enough, and now it is wondering what to do to get back the control. Even if the US got Iraq cleaned up, it wouldn't erradicate terrorism. Terrorism will only disappear when fuel for it is withheld and this generational cycle is over. As much as I this is going to anger a lot of readers (and at the risk of sounding like I have an agenda, I'm sure) I will just state that the only way to win this is to bite the bullet, hunker down, and hold out another 15 years until the waves have passed. The US needs to stop fighting because its real enemy is an ATTITUDE, not a group of psychotic people scattered in cells around the world. The US needs to stop showing fear, clean up its own behavior and foreign policy, and allow the terrorists to make hypocrites of themselves no matter how painful it is. It needs to trust and allow the next generation of Muslims the opportunity to continue the cycle and revolt culturally, in a slow and stable manner independent of outside manipulation and foreign schemes. It's going to hurt very, very much and will take a lot of patience, but in the end the human and monetary cost would be considerably less and respect for the US considerably more.

It will also be interesting to find out just how different our lives will be when this is all over, and how long it will take for our own cycle of paranoia to finish so we can get our Constitution back. I just hope that it doesn't get too bad, and what pushes us back isn't too drastic.

There is some hope: maybe we'll be rid of Wal-mart by then!

Shellie,

That was a very interesting analysis of the cyclical nature of reform & fundamentalism in Muslim culture. Clearly a good strategy for the West is to encourage the reformers and to discourage the fundamentalists. This can be accomplished at the diplomatic, cultural & econaomic level.

But I have to disagree we should just ignore the problem until it goes away. Very few American's are of a mind to ignore what happened on 9/11, especially if it happened again. Iran could have a bomb within a few years (or months) and they have boasted about using it. That is something that just cannot be ignored. Military intervention & intelligence operations have an important role to play in discouraging & preventing further attacks, and in supporting reformers. Remember, Osama boasted that because the US was "a paper tiger" it would not fight back. The US spent a 2 decades ignoring Islamist attacks. The problem didn;t go away, it got worse. If Islamism is, as you say, fading now, perhaps it is because the US finally said "Enough!"

I know something of Islamic history. Muslims have always rallied around winners and deserted losers. By making Osama & co look like losers, the US has undercutted his allure. The consolidation of democracy in Iraq will accelerate that trend and the process will be complete when bin Laden's is on a pike.

Kenneth-

>>>Muslims have always rallied around winners and deserted losers.

I haven't heard of this; please educate me.

>>>The US spent a 2 decades ignoring Islamist attacks. The problem didn;t go away, it got worse.

Please explain what you mean by "ignoring". Since the Iranian Revolution I can count many instances where the US has provoked backlash. The US hasn't just been sitting back, "ignoring" the rise of extremism; it has been funding it!

>>>By making Osama & co look like losers, the US has undercutted his allure.

How has the U.S. made Osama look like a loser? There is a clear majority in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Morocco who currently believe that George W. Bush is more dangerous to world peace than Osama bin Laden. They didn't used to believe this before.

-Shellie

Shellie,

I find your analysis of the psychology of the Islamists very interesting. I have long believed that all politics is psychological. We merely contruct logical arguments to support views we have already adopted for emotional or psychological motives. The psychology of the Islamist is that of the narcissist. What greater narcissism could there be than to believe you are on a mission from God to destroy his enemies?

The phenomenon rallying to winners & deserting loosers analysis was made by Bernard Lewis, & he cites better examples than I can here. People rallied to Nasser for example. They rallied around Saddam, and later deserted him.

The US provoked backlash? Surely, the provocation works both ways. Raiding the US embassy and kidnapping the diplomats was a very provocative action, for example. Flying airplanes into the towers was also very provocative. Hijacking & bombing airliners, assassinating US citizens & diplomats, bombing US ships on port call, all are "provocative actions. It is the hallmark of the narcissist who sees any slight by a perceived enemy as justification for the most outrageously violent response for which the narcissist feels no responsiblity of compunction. "They made me do it" and "You only brought it on yourselves" are the typical excuses we hear time & again.

Perhaps I should have said, the US has made fitfull responses to Islamist terrorism. The US ignored several of Khaddafi's terrorist adventures and he grew bolder, culminating in the Lockerby bombing. Reagan finally smacked him and he backed off. Clinton ignored the Iraqi connections to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, he backed off persuing the Khobar towers bombers, pulled out of Somalia at the first trouble(the mission of which was to provide protection to UN workers distributing aid), & he did nothing in retaliation for the USS Cole bombing. Osama bin Laden himself cited these last 2 events as examples of America's weakness.

Appeasement doesn't work either.
Spain did what the Islamists wanted. They elected the Socialists who pledged to withdraw their forces from Iraq, & were rewarded with further bomb plots.

Osama was very popular even before 9/11 and his popularity grew after that attack. The US response may have provoked many to his camp, but it has also pushed many away, especially those who half-heartedly supported "his aims if not his methods". He is not so popular in Afghanistan nor especially in Iraq anymore. The Pakistani gov't is no longer providing support to Al Qaeda, and much (but not all) financial suppport from the Gulf has been stopped.

The view that Islamism is merely a response to Western foreign policy ignores the fact of 1400 years of Islamic foreign policy of expansion, conquest & war. For example, the case of "Palestine" is regularily put forward as one of Western interference in Arab lands. If only the US would stop supporting Israel, the argument goes, the problem would be solved (ie Israel destroyed) & then peace will shine forth across the Muslim world. This argument conveniently ignores the historical fact that the land was Jewish & Christian before the Arab armies came & conquered it in the 7th century. It also ignores that fact that the Arab conquerors, & later the Turkish rulers, never once established an independant "Palestine" in that land. It is only since the Jews re-established their sovereignty in their land, (ie. the land & city are called Judea & Jerusalem for a reason) that the Arabs have discovered a passion for "Palestinian" nationalism. Do you seriously imagine, if the Arab armies had been successful in destroying the newly borm Islarel in 1948, that there would be an independant Palestine today? On the contrary, the land would have been divided between the victors, with the north going to Syria, the south to Egypt & the middle to Jordan. The world would never have heard of the Palestinian Arabs. But the Islamists would still be with us today.

I just don't believe ignoring the problem will make it go away. If the US had shrugged off the 9-11 attacks Osama would still be protected in Afghanistan & in control of a large & unmolested Al Qaeda. Nuclear armed Pakistan would be backing him. He would have been embolded to continue his attacks, possible gaining control of Saudi Arabia by now (thru the pro-AQ faction of the royal family). Saddam would still be in Iraq & the contacts between A-Q further enhanced & deepened. The US would be hated, but not feared. That is where your policy of ignoring Al-Qaeda would have gotten us: an acsendant Al Qaeda armed with nuclear weapons and in control of 2/3rds of the worlds oil supply. That is indeed a nighmare scenario.

Hah hah! So that is why my ex with NPD ran off to join the extremists? Because they all have NPD, too? Sam Vaknin would tell you to look at corporate America. Same thing. George W Bush=The Wizard of Oz. It makes a lot of sense.

As far as the examples above are concerned with the rallying of Muslims around people like Saddam, there must be a distinction between those who really believe in his policies, those who have no choice (or else be sent to meat grinder), those who have the Stockholm Syndrome, and those who are just plain stupid. I do not however acknowledge this as an all-encompasing example of "Muslims abandoning the loser". For about 500 years it's mostly been a case of Muslims hitching a ride on someone else's horse because they don't have their own, and then getting off when the road forks. If the Caliphate was ever re-established, I don't believe an abandonment would be as quick or easy.

Ghaddafi: He's one of the biggest goof-balls of all time.

Israel: It's not a Jewish issue, it's a Zionist issue; the Zionist terrorists stole Palestine as much from Jews as they did Christian and Muslims. You are right, there never was a country called "Palestine" but there certainly were Palestinians. And they stupidly did not bother following the Ottoman Land Codes of the 1850's and they got screwed by it when the Zionists did. The Christians, however, left and the real Jews continue to be just as much oppressed as the Palestinians. If the Palestinians were smart they would play the game and all join Israel (get citizenship), vote out every single member of the Knesset, and then rule over the Zionists. But that of course will never happen. But maybe the orthodox Jews have a chance, at least they have their act together.

And, as a fact of history, when Abu Bakr walked into Jerusalem, he ordered a mosque that had been built there in place of a church be knocked-down and turned back into a church.

Shellie,

I'm coming in a little late on this thread, but I would like to comment about a few things you have said.

Let me play along with your analogy of the child with a temper tantrum. While it is true that a parent must be patient and understanding when a child has a tantrum lest the child becomee more infuriated, it is equally true that the parent must also be firm and in control where boundaries are concerned, especially when the safety of others and the childs own safety is an issue. If your hypothetical child were to grab a kitchen knife, for example, run out in front of a car, or push a piece of furniture over onto a sibling, then I would be curious to know if you agree that it is the responsibility of a parent or another adult to intervene. Neither am I going to let my neighbors child come over to my house and put my family in danger simply because she/he is having a tantrum. In our culture it would be natural to expect some very controlling behavior to take place in any of these cases.

In effect, you are asking us to step back and let a child with a tantrum wield dangerous weapons, killing indiscriminantly, with the hopes that he/she will get over it in the next 15 years? I think I can speak for many of my fellow citizens: "I don't think so." And to further justify the indiscriminant killings, to suggest that they are because of our own actions is not a legitimate argument in the minds of most Americans.

When someone we don't know, who lives in a culture that is foreign to us, wants to kill people in our country, is it really too radical a notion that we will behave the way our culture has taught us? It is interesting to hear about what is happening in Islamic culture to explain the hostility towards us, but regardless of the reasons, many people have died and will die because of this 'tantrum' you speak of. In our society, we don't blow up buildings when we don't like our governements policies. (Well, maybe some of us do, but that's a subject for a different thread, and our society generally tends to have ill reagard for such behavior) To not expect a harsh response is not reasonable.

I believe that the U.S. has shown great restraint in the past. In fact, it could be argued, (and some have in this thread) that we have exercised too much restraint, with the effect of emboldening those that mean us harm. The WTC attacks woke us up and activated our desire for action. Many People in the U.S. went from a state of moderate indifference to what can be described as a peaked sense of national urgency. "I don;t care what it is that's broken; fix it." If there were another attack such as 9/11, besides the political outfall in our country, it is hard to imagine the next step in escalation. Going back to the child analogy, it may behoove the host culture to become more proactive in containing the tantrums of their parts.

Doug,

I completely agree that you need to discipline a child who pushes another child, or waves around a knife etc. My point is that a child would not go through such extremes unless they were desperately trying to get attention- attention that someone gave them at some point in the past but is now more difficult to "earn". Where at once in the past a whine was enough to get what they wanted, now a blow to a sibling is what is needed. My point is that if no one paid any attention to the child the first time he made a tantrum, he never would have gotten into the habit of throwing increasingly uncontrollable tantrums in the first place. We can bet that countries like Spain that give in to terrorists haven't seen the end of their troubles, exactly because they gave in. As for the US, as long as its example is "might makes right", it can expect the same thing back... and when it comes, the US has to be wise enough to both defend itself AND prevent another attack, which hopefully means understanding and learning what happened the first time around and not repeating it or instigating it. Beating up the kid is not a solution to the problem.

Shellie,

In an earlier comment, you said: "Every time they can instigate an attack against them, they become greater victims and get more sympathy. Every time they are attacked, their victim status is validated and the ranks grow. They are like a 2-year old who finds when he throws a tantrum that he gets what he wants. A smart adult would ignore it the first time around and not give in. The US's policy on NOT giving in to terrorists is based on that idea. Unfortunately we are beyond that point. Now, the tantrums will go ON and ON and ON until until the kid either gets exhausted, distracted, or else forgets what he was screaming about.

Anything the US does (physically) to fight terrorists is only going to drag out the cooling down process. Anything the US does that angers them will just get the adrenaline pumping again and give them more stamina. It will also keep the attention on them, and give them more justification for their actions. If the US left them alone, eventually terrorists will get no results and no satisfaction from their activities and will quit."

Is this really your answer? Will this really rid the world of those who desire to blow themselves up and kill hundreds or thousands of others too?

To take that same logic further, if by ignoring them, they soon stop, then if by giving them what they want, won't they stop even sooner?

Say you're President Shellie. Is this really your plan? Wait it out?

In the totally unlikely scenario that I am President and even had these powers, I would:

1) Stop interfering with other country's foreign affairs. I would only deal with those who we are directly connected to; no favors to third parties who want us to play puppeteer, or do their dirtywork for them.

2) Protect the country when needed; this includes cracking down on illegal immigrants, closing the borders, and revamping the FBI and CIA so that they are citizen-friendly and people can feel like their time was worth it when they do try to call in.

I would give a gun to every citizen, and let the militias handle the borders. Controversial, no doubt: I would legalize drugs so that the price dropped out the bottom to discourage drug pushers, and I also would allow amnesty to any addict who was not involved in the buying, selling, or distribution. Penalties for smuggling would be increased and I would create an annonymous walk-in addiction treatment program.

I would also stop selling US military technology to "temporary allies".

There will be no mercy for caught spies, NO MATTER WHICH COUNTRY THEY WORK FOR. No one gets let off, not even in exchange for "one of ours" or any other favors.

3) Stop bowing down to Israel. If they want the ME, let them fight for it themselves.

4) Create a new currency based on the gold standard. Counter-productive requirements for borrowing from the WB and IMF would have to go.

5) Stop vetoing laws that would reduce our dependence on oil. This would have to be ruthlessly enforced. This would also decrease the amount of wealth ME puppet governments have to oppress their people with. I would ALLOW the people to take back their own countries by whatever means they choose. Once they have a window of opportunity to make change in their own countries (with no interference by any Western country for either side), they won't be concerned with the US; any disagreements would be an internal matter. No favors, weapons sales, or training to any side. It only causes backlash years later. This would also go for Africa, Asia, and South America.

6) Trade agreements definitely need to be revamped, especially those with China and Mexico.

7) There needs to be more scholarships for study abroad; speakers of non-European languages need to be recruited and trained to teach US students and military personnel their language. If I had the opportunity to interfere with state control of education, I would make knowledge of one non-European language a high school graduation requirement.

8) Get rid of the tax laws that allow US companies to use cheap foreign labor.

9) As far as the problem with Iraq, it's already such a mess that I have no realistic ideas for how to handle it. Like I said before, I don't believe that winning it will have any tangible affect on "the war on terror". Getting our fingers out of everyone else's business will have more effect. I do not believe that Iraq should be abandonned; I just hope that in 3 years we have a president who is diplomatic enough to try to find someone else, preferably another Islamic country (but no Iraqi neighbors), to gracefully pass the logistics off to even if it means the US still has to pay $$$.

I do not believe there is any real proof of any cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda dreamed about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, just as much as it wants to get rid of Bait al-Saud. We just did it for them, and created another chaotic piece of property for them to occupy to boot. The US will have serious problems in Iran; just because there are US troops on the east and west sides of Iran doesn't mean there is any overwhelming power or advantage, especially since countries like Uzbekistan are refusing the US to continue to use their land for military bases. Things are thin enough as it is.