Would like your thoughts on this Reason article about the terrorist threat.
I do believe the threat is overstated when put into perspective. The idea that our reaction to Al Qaeda has helped their worldwide image is an idea worthy of further exploration, although I don't think you could come up with any hard proof that America's reaction to Al Qaeda has raised the movement to mythological status. Certainly the publicity can't help, as you hear more and more about "Al Qaeda inspired" terrorists.
All I said above is something most politicians are afraid to say...you saw the beating Giuliani laid down on Ron Paul during the first Republican debate. I do think some candid analysis is necessary if we're going to succeed in the GWOT, or "long war".
If we're going to continue using terms like "war" to describe the fight, maybe we should use some of the basic analytical tools used to assess our success in the war...how are our actions effecting the enemy? I don't think numbers of arrest, or lack of attacks are the best measures of merit...they may be first order effects, those most visible. However, we must look deeper if we're to understand the challenges.
Homeland Security is largely an overreaction. The DHS is a largely inept bureaucracy. I'm not a fan of any curtailment of civil liberties. As long as we've got guys like Chertoff talking about their "gut feelings", the government will continue to push for further overreaction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'll read this tonight and try and make a coherent statement in response.
Here's a quote for you:
"Let us say that the game may be continued in two ways: one of them is a beautiful tactical blow that gives rise to variations that don't yield to precise calculation; the other is clear positional pressure that leads to an endgame with microscopic chances of victory... I would choose [the latter] without thinking twice. If the opponent offers keen play, I don't object; but in such cases I get less satisfaction even if I win, than from a game conducted with all the rules of strategy with its ruthless logic." -- Anatoly Karpov
When Karpov uses the term "positional" he really just means "strategic" as opposed to "tactical."
not sure i get it.
In terms of chess play, Karpov was my favorite chess player. He was very pragmatic, cautious, etc. He took no risks, and just gradually gained a better position on the board by accumulating tiny advantages. He strangled his opponent slowly like a boa constrictor. And then the game would reach a moment where the opponent's position collapsed in a dramatic manner. That always brought a smile to my face. Because you would see a position that was completely equal slowly turn into victory for him.
I agree with your comments. The article makes some points worthy of examination. I don't really have anything to add, other than this: The GOP gets too much mileage out of the GWOT. They are always going to play the fear card. And the Democrats fear they will be weak on national security if they don't act somewhat similarly.
throughout history, lots of bad (dare we say 'evil') people have played the fear card.
"People react to fear, not love; they don't teach that in Sunday School, but it's true." -- Richard Nixon
And as long as that's the case, politicians will exploit this to no end.
Post a Comment