Is That a Drum I Hear?

Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. He is the author of this piece at The American Thinker.

Mr. Meyers proposes four alternatives that appear to cover the situation rather thoroughly. I would be interested in a fifth solution should anyone care to propose one. Lacking a fifth I'll take his fourth - and the sooner the better.

16 comments:

Knucklehead said...

Do they still sell fifths? Aren't we pretty much converted over to metric?

Meyer's piece at AT is an interesting one. I enjoyed how he framed the issue at hand.

There is actually a fifth, very liberal and understanding and quite popular, approach that he fails to put forward. That, of course, is to allow the attack to happen and then use it as a rallying cry. The hypothetical grenade attack on the school, for example, should not be stopped at all but should, instead, be used as justification to end private ownership of firearms and make schools Second Amendment Whacko Free Zones.

Like you, however, in the absence of a preferrable alternative I'll accept Meyer's fourth.

PDS said...

Rick: okay, you've just ruined my afternoon. I am now going to go bury my head in the sand and finish that letter to the editors about the unitary executive.

Rick Ballard said...

PDS,

Very nice blog. I liked your Super Bowl piece.

I always make too many mistakes when I type with my head buried in the sand. Plus, it screws up the keyboard. I'm confused about the unitary executive thing, too. Is a binary executive possible?

Wrt "what if this is true?", I'm looking forward to the next installment.

Syl said...

Actualy, the fifth alternative is what Meyer's is advocating--not the fourth.

I'll take the fifth as well.

er, you know what I mean.

mrp said...

Well, fine. But should we select the military option, we'd better go in with the stone-cold understanding that we could (likely) lose large portions of several cities in the process. The Iranian chemical and bio WMD programs are well advanced.

Would such an effort be worth the cost? I'm in the process of reading "The Legacy of Jihad (ed. by A. Bostum). I strongly recommend it, as does Ms. Ye'Or. Every turned page reeks and groans with the blood and muffled sighs of fifty generations of peoples slaughtered or held in Muslim bondage. No one reading this book should be under any illusion as to what the Islamists have in mind for us.

mrp said...

Andrew Bostom, that is.

Rick Ballard said...

You're right Syl. I'll take the fifth with you - although I would go a bit farthr than a decapitation strike. I remember "Unshocked and Unawed" too well.

MRP,

I agree about the loss calculation but "later" equals "worse" as far as I can tell. Both for us and for Iran.

We're back to that "inshallah" thing and the delusion that they are "in the right" and will thus be protected from retaliation. Which is why, abhorrent thought it would be, a small strike that makes the black rock disappear (OK, Mecca too) would probably be the most effective antiterrorist move possible. My understanding of Islamic theology is that it is a tenet of Islam that Mecca is protected by Allah. Pull that plug and the theology collpses.

An ugly thought but I'm way past the point of being concerned about being loved - being feared is sufficient, thanks.

mrp said...

RB -

Which is why, abhorrent thought it would be, a small strike that makes the black rock disappear (OK, Mecca too) would probably be the most effective antiterrorist move possible. My understanding of Islamic theology is that it is a tenet of Islam that Mecca is protected by Allah. Pull that plug and the theology collpses.

Rick, that's a mighty thin reed for a victory plan. There may be as many "black rocks" out there as there are nails and slivers of the True Cross. If we go in, it'll be the "Chicago" way. All the way.

PDS said...

Rick: thanks. Your comments are appreciated.

Knucklehead said...

PDS,

Going way OT here but I followed Rick's recommendation and read the Super Bowl piece. Very interesting.

It isn't nearly the same thing (you had some rational reason to wish to just skip the flight) but I have some empathy for the feeling. Some time ago my work required that I fly frequently. Flying never bothered me in any way. But out of nowhere, I once stood up to head down the jetway and was nearly stopped in my tracks by probably the worst anxiety attack I've ever experienced. Cold sweat type fear. I forced myself onto the plane and it passed. It lasted for two more flights and then went away and has never reappeared.

As I said, in your case you had a rational reason to want to avoid the flight. In my case it was just forcing myself to put aside what I knew was completely irrational. And to think, I coulda been a Moonbat! All that was required was to give in to irrationality. Missed my chance, I guess ;).

Peter UK said...

Perhaps we are just not being kind enough to the Mullahs,we should send Sinnead O'connor
That'll put the fear of God into them!

RogerA said...

Interesting question posed by Mr. Meyer--and I thought his analogy was excellent. In terms of military action, do we have the technology to do what he proposes.

Well, yes--this is not a potential action to be fought with armored divisions or marine divisions. It would involve special operations forces; it would involve our technological superiority and use of our stealth technology. And unbeknownst to many observers, our action in Iraq has how provided us what strategists refer to as interior lines of communication (thats a good thing for those of you that aren't into military strategy).

We dont have to worry about the Turks or Europeans permitting overflight or basing rights--we are there up and close and personal with Iran (and just incidentially) Syria.

My biggest question mark about the entire strategy really comes down to where the Iranian people are--I havent seen the kind of support from an allegedly oppressed people that I thought they might be showing; they frankly havent done much on their own behalf, and indeed, a majority of them elected the current moonbat as President--

The support of the Iranian people isnt all that important anyway: in the event of a decapitation strike, they might be upset, but they wont be doing much except demonstrating and burning American or Israeli flags--and any kind of military response against US forces would result in those Iranian forces'wholesale destruction.

That issue makes a decapitation strike all the better--it will tell exactly where the people in Iran are with respect to their loyalties and ideas--and they wont be able to do much except shout "death to america" or doing some flag burning--big deal, that happens on a daily basis in the Moslem world.

All in all: go for it; cheap easy and while we might irritate a lot of people, who really gives a damn?
And if the House of Reps decides to impeach the president, we get Dick Cheney--this really is a win win win. And just for grins, we can drop a few on the holy city of Qum thereby reuniting all those ayatollahs with their 72 raisens (or virgins) as the case may be.

Buddy Larsen said...

Gotta have a government-in-exile ready to go in, though. Gad. So sick of these crazy sumbitches, maybe we don't need to worry about 'next'. Just rain down upon the noxious ones, and fly away. Let the chips fall where they may. Say, "Hell, they've been at us for thirty years, we just had enough". The good Muslims will applaud it or sit on their hands, the jihadis are lost anyway.

Rick Ballard said...

Buddy,

You summed up the reason why although a slim majoreity say they don't particularly care for the manner in which war is being waged at the moment, a larger majority are quite willing to go after Iran. Perhaps not with invasion - which I oppose - but certainly with a nice leisurely bombing campaign taking out not just the leadership but every site conceived of having anything to do with the nuclear program.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

Unintended consequences, boys, unintended consequences. We bomb them, they invade Iraq--and then what? We bomb them, they bomb Tel Aviv--and then what? We bomb them, they bomb New York--and then what?

I don't think you can have halfway wars. Settle the b*ds down or don't stir up the hornet's nest.

Peter UK said...

MHA,
I sense that if Iran invaded Iraq,much of the heavt artillery and bombers waiting around with nothing to do will suddenly get very busy.That is the kind of war your military were designed to fight.