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.
9 comments:
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.
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.
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.
Andrew Bostom, that is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment