From Seattle writer and consultant Matt Rosenberg...

« The Few, The Proud, The Seedgivers | Main | Pro-Abortion Extremists Sully Themselves Again »

State Consequences Now For Another 9/11

July 08, 2004

We're repeatedly warned that major terrorist strikes are coming again to the U.S., yet our leaders seem utterly disinterested in making known any sort of pre-emptive deterrent to the countries that would aid and abet the shadowy attackers, worries Victor Davis Hanson. He has an idea.

...inform hostile countries right now of a (big) list of their assets — military bases, power plants, communications, and assorted infrastructure — that will be taken out in the aftermath of another attack, a detailed sequence of targets that will be activated when the culpable terrorists' bases and support networks are identified and confirmed. We would have to draft a formal declaration of war — as we should have against the Taliban, bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein — against those countries that harbored or even aided the next 9/11-like cell. Both sides should anticipate the consequences should another 3,000 Americans be incinerated at work.

Hanson's piece is in collaboration with the National Review Online. Tip via dadblogger.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at July 8, 2004 01:38 PM


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/413

Comments:

Here's a possible consequence to warn ME terrorists of: We'll hand Mr. Sharon a map of the Middle East and a Sharpie, and invite him to draw himself a border. Then the entire force of the US military, up to and including its nuclear arsenal, will make that happen. Reckon that would get their attention?

Posted by: Laura at July 8, 2004 02:15 PM

Or let's all sit in a freindship circle and gently work out our differences

Posted by: liberal pansy @ large at July 8, 2004 03:07 PM

I don't think anything specific like VDH's suggestion will ever take place because it represents the cruise missle approach against infrastructure. Remember the Clinton strategy? Saddam never feared Clinton because he knew he was safe and he would continue to control Iraq.

The leaders of a rogue regime like Saddam escaped harm and the countries often innocent citizens suffered. Worse, the propaganda value from all of the suffering "we caused" against innocents is broadcast to the world. After thinking about this, we shouldn't be suprised we didn't receive a more gracious welcome from the Iraqi's when we finally liberated this nation. We had abandonded them before in the first Gulf war and allowed sanctions to go on too long until they became counter productive and a propanda tool for Saddam. We should have learned this lesson well.

We have already have a more aggressive version of this policy and it's success with military action and the lessons those actions have conveyed to the world have paid real dividends beyond Afganistan and Iraq. We must not just threaten pin prick strikes against the countries plumbing and electrical grids, but creditably threaten the continued existence of rogue regimes.

That's the real purpose behind the attacks against Afganistan and Iraq. States that harbor, condone and support terrorists face elimination. Lybia learned this lesson very quickly. It both gave up it's WMD's and provided much useful information about the underground weapons components trade between Pakistan, Lybia, Iran and North Korea.

That's the best homeland security policy we could ever adopt.

I'm a big fan of VDH. But in this case, he's just wrong.

Posted by: Gary B at July 8, 2004 07:12 PM

Actually, I thought the attack on 9/11 was sufficient provocation for all that Victor Davis Hanson recommends, and then some. Evidently not.

Most journalistic accounts from Iraq leave simpletons like me in doubt about whether the Bush administration is even creating more deterrence than it is experiencing.

Posted by: Tom Rekdal at July 12, 2004 02:01 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?