Half-MAD

We win and they lose

We must respond to terrorism and its sponsorship with a new and basic U.S. national security policy: “If you, your agents or factions attack or threaten us, you risk asymmetric and strategic attack on the critical elements of your continued existence as a political or economic entity, especially your leadership.” This is not a Cold War “Mutual Assured Destruction” or MAD doctrine — it is the half of it that pertains to the sponsors or enablers of terror.

Comments

  1. As in, a gang of non-Iraqis in Al Qaeda attacks the USA, so the USA invades Iraq? Or as in, the Taliban ask for evidence that Osama Bin Laden masterminded an attack on the USA before extraditing him, so the USA invades Afghanistan instead of providing it (and still doesn’t get him, so timely action forestalling his flight couldn’t have been an issue)? I am reminded of one of Aesop’s Fables, in which a wolf goes through a list of justifications before devouring a lamb.

  2. Jeez, do you STILL not get it? Invading Iraq had (partially) to do with eliminating a future threat, and a KNOWN sponsor of terrorism. Saddam gave money to the families of suicide bombers, for God’s sake! To make out that it somehow was revenge for an attack by Al Qaeda is disingenuous.

  3. The Taliban seem like a bunch of thugs and given that we have had much less trouble in Afghanistan that Russia had, it does not seem to me like the population as a whole has much of a problem with us being there. Certainly there has been a big al Quada presence there. On the other hand, I get really tired of hearing people who talk the talk without even having a clue what it means to walk the walk. ‘We win and they lose’ is just some more weenie crap from a bunch of geeks that hardly know what to do with a sharp pencil.

  4. To make out that it somehow was revenge for an attack by Al Qaeda is disingenuous’ – but Nicholas, I was doing no such thing. The original posting was recommending that sort of massive retaliation, it wasn’t my suggestion at all. For what it’s worth, making payments to surviving relatives of suicide bombers is not sponsoring that – it comes after the fact and is too remote. It’s like saying that field hospitals shouldn’t treat enemy wounded because it only encourages them. Saddam Hussein had no connection to any of the claimed reasons for invading Iraq, whether made before or since. As it happens I have no problem with proportionate measures of this sort, but I really don’t like the fire/aim/ready sequence that I’ve seen in all the implementations to date.