From The Reckoner...

As Schneier argues: “The only effective way to deal with terrorists is through old-fashioned police and intelligence work - discovering plans before they’re implemented and then going after the plotters themselves. Every arrest of an al Qaeda member weakens the organization. Every country that’s unwilling to harbor such individuals interferes with its operation.”

It all depends what the goal is...

If the goal is successful prosecutions of terrorists AFTER they kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people then, Yes...

Treating terrorism as an Law Enforcement problem IS the correct way to go...

However.....

If the goal is to PREVENT terrorist attacks and save innocent lives then the ONLY way to do so is with the military and thru military ROEs....

The job of counter terrorism is not, nor will ever be, to bring terrorists to justice after the fact...

The job of counter terrorism is to prevent terrorists from ever accomplishing terrorist attacks..

One successful terrorist attacks means that CT operatives have failed.

"..... nature of the beast"
-Colonel Hadley, THE FINAL OPTION

Michale....

In the case of 9/11, we should have treated this as an act committed by criminals, not invaded countries.

Keep in mind that successful prosecutions of WTC terrorists in 1993 did not prevent more terrorist attacks on NY and DC eight years later...

On the other hand, kicking ass and taking names, militarily, has prevented terrorist attacks on US proper for the last decade...

It's clear that the US military is better equipped to respond to terrorist attacks than local Law Enforcement...

Michale.....

It's all in the timing...

Michale.....

Bahahahahahahahahahhahahahah. I just about choked on some soup laughing.

Soup ... that liquidity substance that's almost impossible to choke on ...

Damn you! :)

Hi, nice ta meetcha. I'm Michale. Arrogant prick..

:D

Michale.....

If you do a Google news search, you'll see that the Times is about the only mainstream media outlet that covered this. Though I saw it show up on Drudge too. Something the Times remarks on in the full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html

Here's a comment from one of my liberal friends I thought you'd enjoy:

"I found this article to be fascinating. I've often been baffled by the Tea Party's critique of 'big government' while simultaneously defending the wealthy and corporations.

This is the first time that Sarah Palin actually has me thinking..."

Look at the trouble you've caused :)

-David

Party pooper! :D

Very interesting.

Even more interesting is that it came from the NY TIMES...

Still processing this development but thanks for pointing this out, Michale!

de nada... :D

Michale...

"Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs."

Very interesting.

Still processing this development but thanks for pointing this out, Michale!

I have nothing against her personally. But let's hear her ideas to solve the issues she raises.

Given her statements, what's her position on Citizens' United, for example.

Heck, if Republicans (or anyone for that matter) is willing to put forward ideas I believe would work, I'd be for them.

Even if it were Sarah ...

We did...

But first, we had to go thru the country/state that was giving the "criminals" safe haven..

Terrorism is a military problem, not a Law Enforcement one.

Why??

Because Law Enforcement is, for the most part, predicated on reaction. It's a reactionary after-the-fact action..

Military action, by necessity, is a pro-active force..

I am sure you would agree that we simply cannot be reactionary with regards to terrorism... We must be pro-active..

Hence, military action...

p.s. I'd agree with points 1 & 2 that you listed.

Pretty smart lady, that Sarah Palin, eh?? :D

Michale...

Nope. If you look at the objectives and look at the approaches taken, I'm saying that there are better ways than unilateral war.

This is what I've always argued when it comes to national security.

http://thereckoner.com/?p=59

In the case of 9/11, we should have treated this as an act committed by criminals, not invaded countries. We should have gone after the people who committed the crime.

-David

Here are three points for you to consider..

1. The United States is now governed by a permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people.

2. These Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage.

3. The real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

Would you agree with these 3 points??

Michale.....

Iraq because of the way Bush (H.W.) screwed over the Iraqi opposition in the aftermath of Desert Storm..

Afghanistan because it WAS the US that was attacked. Leading from behind is about the most cowardly and irresponsible form of leadership...

Obama and his LFB Doctrine simply got lucky in Libya.

Pure and simple..

Michale....

Afghanistan is free of Taliban control..

True, but is Iraq better off.

Ask the women who have been brutally raped and murdered by Hussein if Iraq is better off..

Oh wait. You can't ask the ones that have been murdered. Because they are dead...

Maybe we should ask the Iraqis. They seem to want us out of there.

And yet, from all reports, even the Iraqis are a quite worried about Obama's bonehead "Only 3K troops in Iraq by years end." political maneuver.. The troops on the ground, the ones that SHOULD be calling the shots, are "livid"...

Yup. Done right. Multilaterally. Through NATO. In control of Libyan people. At little relative cost. Compare with above.

Actually, if you compare the cost and extrapolated to be comparable to the time in TOP for the Afghanistan and Iraqi TOP, then the costs are also comparable..

I will also point out that Libya is likely to go the way of Iran and Egypt precisely BECAUSE Obama led from behind..

If we have a major responsibility in the war, we also have a seat at the table after the war..

We don't in Libya and likely never will, the wisdom of our host notwithstanding...

But, this might be a revelation.. Are you saying you don't mind going to war, as long as it doesn't cost much??

Michale...

Really? According to the reports I've seen, it's not.

Iraq is free of Hussein.

True, but is Iraq better off. Maybe we should ask the Iraqis. They seem to want us out of there.

Libya is free of Daffy.

Yup. Done right. Multilaterally. Through NATO. In control of Libyan people. At little relative cost. Compare with above.

-David

Anyone think it was big enough???

Michale.....

So: 394 MILLION DOLLARS went to Albany N.Y. for weatherization programs, did it?
I must tell you no one in Albany has heard the happy news yet.

I can only guess what you mean by: "Grant explaining the African vote"

Aside from being incoherent......your post reads like a press release from "The Department Of Making
Sh*t Up."

Very tiresome
tm

I'm with you, Michale, that I don't think we'll see something big enough. *sigh*

There are "big" ways to go that won't bankrupt this country..

Of course, I don't have a clue what they are, but...... :D

Michale.....

Afghanistan is free of the Taliban..

Iraq is free of Hussein..

Libya is free of Daffy..

Surely you don't begrudge those people their freedom, eh??

And I will always do my duty, no matter what the price,
I've counted up the cost, I know the sacrafice,
Oh, and I don't want to die for you,
But if dyin's asked of me,
I'll bear that cross with an honor,
'Cause freedom don't come free.
-Toby Keith, AMERICAN SOLDIER

Michale.....

You forgot something- the 3.2 to 4 trillion dollars we spent on our wars.

And that doesn't include the $450 billion Pentagon budget for this year just for the wars.

http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

-David

I'm with you, Michale, that I don't think we'll see something big enough. *sigh*

You might be interested in Joseph Stiglitz's book "Freefall". He talks about how he and other economists argued for an even bigger stimulus after the 2008 collapse but it wasn't politically expedient.

I think you'd enjoy it as he also talks a lot about the causes of the crisis. It's a great read for anyone interested in economics.

-David

Everyone in Vermont and across the country understand­s that we can put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding the nation's bridges, roads, schools, dams, culverts, rail systems and public transporta­tion, among other vital needs.

,,,

Yes!! because my unemployed 50 year old sister with a computer programmin­g degree is going to go pick up a pick and shovel or a drive a steam roller down the road. I can see her right now driving spikes on the railroad or building a dam.

My sister likes another word for "levee's" (starts with dy) in her personal life but that doesn't mean she wants to go out and build what Websters defines as: "a bank usually of earth constructed to control or confine water" :)

Didnt we hear the same thing with the last Porkulus, I mean Stimulus? How much of that money went to actually building roads dams and other "infrastru­cture" projects and how much went to things like:

Grant Explaining the African Vote $233,825 La Jolla CA Jobs created 0

Grant Career: Survival of the Privileged­: Exploring the Conditions that Allow Supermassi­ve Black Holes and Minority Physicists to Thrive $1,075,873 Nashville TN Jobs created 0

Grant Weatheriza­tion Assistance Program $394,686,5­13 Albany NY Jobs created 43 (do the math per job!!)

http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/

It seems to me that everyone agrees..

Obama has to go "big"... It can't be the same old "pep talk" style speech. Americans are tired of "shiny beads and shallow flattery"...

This country NEEDS something big...

Anyone wanna lay quatloos down on whether we see something "big" or just the same old same old nice words and no action???

Michale.....

no words, no threats, just every day call them back into session, and let it be known you'll hang a veto on any policy that doesn't accomplish the goal of creating real jobs right here.

I wish more Congressmen were thinking the same and our corporate media were willing to cover something other than "what corporate America wants".

-David