I understand Bush is going to be unveiling his new strategy for the so-called “War on Terror” tonight. Wake me up when he argues for military action against Iran. Absent that, the United States is making the same strategic error that Israel made last year during its war in Lebanon: failure to correctly identify the enemy and then act to destroy it. And, as with Israel, that strategic error will make victory impossible. It doesn’t matter how powerful your military is if you won’t use it on the right targets.

Until the Bush administration is willing to continue with the strategy that was originally and successfully used in Iraq — targetting states that support terrorism and destroying them — they’re just engaged in a bloodier and longer road to defeat than the one urged on us by the left and their enablers in the Democratic party.

8 Responses to “Here we go again”
  1. Bubba says:

    I don’t know about this “War on Terror” thing, I’m just looking for a Marlboro catalog…

  2. Gooseman says:

    You’ve got to be kidding — the so called “War on Terror” with Iraq was a joke. It’s a joke now — and don’t even get me started about the first time (Kuwait invasion). The first time around had nothing to do with terror and everything to do with oil.

    If we REALLY wanted to focus on the problem we would reallocate 10% of our current resources in Iraq to Afgahnistan (and/or Pakistan) to take care of Bin Laden and his henchmen.

    We are wasting our time in Iraq. It’s an illegal war (just like Panama with Noriega) and we’ve got no business being there.

    –Gooseman

  3. Kyle Haight says:

    I called it ‘so-called’ because terrorism is a tactic. You don’t go to war with a tactic, you go to war with an enemy who is trying to destroy you. The war we face is no more a war against terrorism than World War II was a war against U-Boats or Kamikaze pilots.

    Given the tenor of your other remarks, I suspect we do not agree on who our actual enemy is (or perhaps even whether we have one at all), and consequently we are unlikely to agree on the appropriate strategy to pursue. I think, for example, that the death of Bin Laden and all his henchmen would not even put a real dent in the actual problem, which is much broader than al-Qaeda (or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Iraq).

    I do agree that we are wasting our time in Iraq right now. The Iraqi campaign would have been justified if it were simply one stage in a broader ongoing regional war against the other Islamic totalitarian regimes in the area. I originally supported it because that is what I thought it would be. As things turned out, I was wrong, and had I known in advance that this is what Bush would do with his foothold in the Middle East I would not have supported it.

    I do dispute the claim that the war is illegal. It was duly authorized by Congress, and just because they are now having second thoughts does not change the fact that they voted for it.

  4. PrEg says:

    Ok, now targeting Iran… So they stop oil exports, oil goes to $150-200 per barrel, what would be the next step ? I think going for Iran now would be kind of similar of going after Soviet Union once Vietnam was lost, or after China once Korean war ended in a stalemate.

  5. Kyle Haight says:

    Currently, Saudi Arabia has enough surplus oil production capacity (and the expressed willingness to use it) to completely cover Iran’s withdrawal from the oil market. The house of Saud don’t want to see a nuclear Iranian hegemony in the middle east any more than we do. That’s the short term. In the middle term, the Iranian government is heavily dependent on oil revenues to remain in power, which means they can’t survive an oil embargo forever. Eventually the regime falls and is replaced with something less psychotic, and their oil reserved are returned to the global market.

    In the long term, higher oil prices would help drive changes to the energy economy, first to the development of new technologies for extracting oil from shale and tar sands, then to nuclear fission and fuel cells. That is, of course, if the people who oppose war in the middle east would also stop opposing things like nuclear power and exploration for new oil sources.

    The transition would be a bitch, of course.

  6. PrEg says:

    You made a good point: there are very few folks who are both for the nuclear energy, and against these never ending wars. Which is probably the same as to say that there are very few reasonable, moderate folks out there.

  7. Kyle Haight says:

    The 1970’s left did a superb job of demonizing nuclear power, effectively blocking its development for a generation. We’re paying the price for that today. I sometimes think that if GE announced that they had discovered a way to generate electricity by magic, an environmentalist group would attack them because they hadn’t proved that magic doesn’t cause cancer.

    As for opposition to the ‘never ending wars’, let me respond by quoting Babylon 5: “Sometimes ‘peace’ is another word for ‘surrender’.” I try to be reasonable, but nobody has ever accused me of being a moderate and I hope nobody ever will. The only thing you find in the middle of the road are dead skunks with yellow stripes down their backs.

  8. PrEg says:

    See how US benefits from Iraq war:

    http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

    Now imagine all the goodies coming from atacking Iran…

Leave a Reply