So, I get this, by email from a brother-in-law just as I’m sitting down for lunch. No indication of its source. Don’t know whether it’s contrived, or an actual speech or letter. Nevertheless, it got me to thinking.
Thanks. This turned out to be very enjoyable reading on my Blackberry during lunch. A quick search upon my return to the office yields that this letter was written by some retired attorney to his sons.
About the only real quibble I have with it is that I think our support of Israel is right up there on our list of why we’re hated and attacked. No matter; no sane person can review the footage of 9/11 and not take seriously the threat. That we should continue to pansy-ass our way, in harmony with an ineffectual and corrupt United Nations (as Kerry would have us do) and weasels like France, Germany, and now Spain is unconscionable, to me.
It’s remarkable to me how hatred of GWB can actually motivate sane people to overlook this sort of threat; and thinking Kerry can do any better is just unfounded, and probably totally wrong.
You want to know how shallowly nearly everyone sees all this? How about Iraq? How many times have you heard anyone name the principle value of taking Iraq vis-à-vis the overall war on terror? Nobody. Why?; because they don’t think strategically. Iraq sits right between Syria and Iran, both far harder to take than Iraq. All these months, we have been staging gear in Iraq in case it ever becomes necessary to take Syria or Iran, the two largest sponsors of Terrorism. Moreover, Iran now sits right between Iraq and Afghanistan. We can take them from both sides (like we wanted to do in Iraq, had we had Turkey’s cooperation). They know and understand this. The world public does not. It will not be until many years later when historians speculate that the biggest value of taking Iraq was that it kept Iran and Syria in check and convinced them that fighting terrorists was the best long-term move, just like Libya has recently decided. Moreover, it served as a magnet for terrorists all over the region who came into Iraq and were killed by the thousands (better to have the battlefield there than here). Why there and not here, when here would cause so much more terror? Logistics; I don’t believe it’s any more complicated than that. Remember, these nutcases believe that if they’re martyred, they’re going to place in the sky with a white man in a robe and chair, and 70 virgins–so why not make it easier. Even martyrs can be self-interested martyrs. It’s so much easier for them to operate over there, to have shelter, cover, logistical and moral support over there.
Of course, you hear none of the above from the Administration because they are not going to talk about their overall geo-political game plan. For them to come out and say, publicly, “now we can take Iran or Syria when/if we need to,” would be very destabilizing.