The core problems in both Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan are both political: the incapacity of the local state to establish a working civil society; a fact that has allowed all kinds of mischief to be based within their borders. But as events have shown, the solution to the political problem contains a large military component. Unless security is provided for the local good guys, the bad guys can always use terror to coerce the population into line. The dove flies under a parasol of swords. If there is no such thing as a “purely military” solution, neither is there such a thing as a purely political one.
“In other words the Independent thinks it unfortunate that the former French President called the public’s attention to the fact that a political superstructure was being constructed over the nations of Europe and thinks Tony Blair was ‘cowardly’ to promise he would consult the voters on it when the whole thing could have been handled so much more quietly in backrooms.”
“One of the sentiments Barack Obama has successfully tapped into is the long simmering popular suspicion that the political and media classes have morphed into a class apart, accountable to no one and answerable only to itself. And while Obama’s motives for tapping into that discontent may be debatable, the discontent itself is probably quite real. The public disaffection with politicians of both parties with an unlimited capacity for making concessions to illegal immigrant lobbies, identity politics, oil sheiks, corporate interests and foreign bagmen is bottled up only by the lack of a clear alternative.”
“But recent events in Britain underscore just how powerful the backroom has become and how little words to the public mean. Despite Tony Blair’s promises not to give up British sovereignty without asking Britons, the “fix” was in. Recently Barack Obama himself was accused of privately telling the Canadian government one thing about NAFTA while the public yet another. Although Obama denies talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying his staffers were misunderstood, the shadow of the backroom looms large over every public pronouncement. Maybe politicians don’t represent the “people” any more. Just themselves.”
Are the following examples of change?
As his supporters will point out, Obama hasn’t been indicted with Rezko. However, what does his longterm relationship with Rezko say about Obama’s character? Are the boarded up slums his reward to the constituents of his congressional district?
I find it incredible that Hillary claims she didn’t know one of her biggest fund raisers was a felon and fugitive. Even if I were to give her the benefit of doubt, it is even more incredible that her entire staff were duped along with her. And, if they were aware of Hsu’s history, they were ignoring direct instructions from Hillary to be certain all donations to the campaign were legitimate. Is this the kind of leadership & ethics we can expect from Clinton and her White House staff?
Considering the rhetoric emanating from front-running US Presidential candidates, throwing an egg against a rock has a greater chance of success than it might seem. It’s apparently the judgment of Chinese planners, and who knows how many other powers in the world, that many esteemed American leaders would surrender at the drop of a hat. That may not be true, but that’s how foreign military planners, listening to their rhetoric, understand the words coming out of their mouths. Otherwise, no soap. From a military point of view, a surprise attack on US facilities within the “Dragon’s Lair” would have little probability of eventual success.
[…]
It’s Washington politics that gives aggressors hope; paradoxically it’s the desire for peace at all costs — at any price — that invites the reckless to roll the dice.
The US Presidential candidates should remind the American populace that the default condition of the world is war; famine, chaos and conflict. When it comes to foreign policy, maintaining an unambiguously strong position is the best approach.
America has wisely learned that some debates are better left unresolved; that imperfection is sometimes a virtue; and that all faith is dangerous unless accompanied by a large bucket of fried chicken and six-pack of beer; and the tabloid the necessary antidote to the intellectual political journal.
America is different, plus there’s always the to choose crispy crust or traditional! It’s a fantastic post that’s worth reading.
Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. The theory behind making areas gun free is that it will make them safer. However, the opposite occurs because criminals simply don’t obey gun free zone laws. Therefore, creating gun free zones and failing to proactively enforce them with searches and armed law enforcement officers just creates a kill zone, not a safety zone.
Update:
Wretchard has a more exstensive post along the same line, In Loco Parentis, that also draws in the anti-terror security implications of this incident.
I find the possibility especially intriguing because I work for SPIE. Technologies like chemical lasers and adaptive optics are researched, developed, and applied to real world problems by members of the society.
