| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Dick Morris shows that treating terrorists as a police matter cannot succeed.
...terrorist gangs are only truly capable of mayhem when they’re aligned with nation-states, able to use a government’s resources to spread destruction globally.
...Complex operations require as the empowering accoutrements of nationhood: secure boundaries to plan and train for operations; import-export trade with other nations to use in smuggling; intelligence and diplomatic contacts worldwide; foreign currency reserves. With these tools, terror gangs become global threats.
It isn’t hard to smash a gang. It is very, very difficult to topple a foreign government and then restore the country to order. But it is only by going nation-by-nation and getting rid of those regimes that sponsor and promote terror gangs that we can be successful. President Bush began with Afghanistan and Iraq. While terrorists are still at large and causing damage in both places, they don’t control either country, and can’t use them as bases for global operations.
Bush flipped Libya by his aggressive and successful action against Saddam. Now he must use a robust American presence in Iraq to intimidate Syria and Iran and to get the Saudis to be tougher on terror. Then, with a successful track record behind him, Bush (along with China, South Korea and Japan) can begin to close in on North Korea.
But this model of a War on Terror is far from the mindset and the planning of the leadership of the Democratic Party. Shortly after 9/11, Leon Furth, Al Gore’s chief national-security adviser, warned against attacking Iraq and urged a law-enforcement approach to terror in language almost identical to Holbrooke’s and Kerry’s. The same misguided mindset characterized the Clinton administration’s core thinking on terror – that is, the “defense” that paved the way for 9/11. It is fundamentally, deeply and unalterably wrong.
Read the whole thing.
Going after individual terrorists and not the nations that support them, is to pretend that the leaders of those nations are not involved in the actions of those terrorists.
It is as if Kerry were to pretend that there were no Osama bin Laden, as long as Osama was the leader of a country.
By turning a blind eye to the very leaders of terrorist operations, Kerry would make it impossible for us to halt those operations.
Conclusion: if a nation is trying to get you nuked, and your president regards that as a nuisance, you are in deep trouble.
Update. See also these articles regarding Kerry’s “nuisance” speech:
Kerry Calls Terrorists ‘a Nuisance’—And What Bush Can Do To Appeal To Skittish Dems
Saddam’s Chief Nuclear Physicist Confirms Saddam’s Drive to Acquire WMDs
