An interesting article

Via Dave Justus

If any of you posted this, just let me know and I will give you credit, I found it in my favorites and have know idea where it came from.


General idea:

"We cannot reasonably hope to cover the entire Middle East if, a year and a half after conquering Iraq, we must make the trip from the fortified zone in Baghdad to the fortified airport in infrequent armored convoys. The only way to do it is to coerce existing regimes to accomplish it for us, which is possible by directly threatening their survival, something from which we have refrained by and large because of the paralyzing notion that once we destroy a regime we are bound to stay. We are not. We are bound only to defend the United States. We suffer the illusion that our withdrawal would bring anarchy, when, for example, we have not withdrawn from Iraq and it is the most anarchic of all the states in the region. Perhaps, had we left, it would have settled into a natural equilibrium, what engineers call the angle of repose, or perhaps it would not have. But if there is anarchy why must we attend to it if our attendance is ineffective?...

...To coerce and punish governments that support terrorism, until they eradicate it wherever they exercise authority. To open for operations any territory in which the terrorist enemy functions. To build and sustain the appropriate forces and then some as a margin of safety, so as to accomplish the foregoing and to deter the continuing development of terrorism. To mount on the same scale as the military effort, and with the same probity, the necessary civil defense. To reject the temptation to configure the defensive capabilities of the United States solely to the War on Terrorism, as this will simultaneously stimulate China's military development and insure that we are unprepared for it. These should be our aims in this war."

I really have not read anyone which has actually suggested this particular strategy. I tend to lean this way in the most extreme cases. In the clear and present danger cases, this may well be our only option. In Afghanistan and Iraq they were not clear and present dangers, so we could deal with them as we wish. We chose the harder route of regime change, instead of just destroying them and leaving.

I feel that both regime change and destroying the countries that harbor terrorist would cause just as many enemies in the short term, but in the long term I think it is clear which would be the preferable of the two.

This article points a many things America could do to secure ourselves, with out anyone's help. I agree with some of them. It does not every mention getting help from our allies at all, I feel that allies are important,just like John Kerry. I think they are only useful if they actually help you, not take bribes from the people that hate you. Our strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan have not won us many friends in Europe.

While we have lost some friends, we have created two new ones. It is in our best interest to make sure that the friendship between them grows, they grow more attached to us, and that they stay strong. We can strengthen both of them by imposing no tariffs on any of their goods coming into America and setting up very generous trade deals between Iraq and Afghanistan. Some people what to concentrate on security, which I agree is important. More important is that they start to build the economic infrastructure to support and protect their selves without our help. We are making a long term security investment in these two countries, and we should start planning for the long term now.

cube