Comparing an era where wars were fought exclusively by nation-states, using military formations, with our current dilemma is less than useful. Enough nerve gas to kill everyone in Times Square might fit in one barrel. 9/11 killed thousands and did billions of dollars in damage without using any military equipment at all.
The actions on 9/11 were taken by people who were supported by nation-states. Afghanistan specifically. And Iraq as well (training sites, and money to terrorist organizations).
I agree with the Bush doctrine of treating nation-states that support terrorists, as terrorists themselves. That's the only long term solution we have, and it seems to be working.
posted on 01/12/2004 10:00:19 AM PST
(McGovern lost in 72 - and launched the left's takover of the Dem party)
Agree 100%. The point I was clumsily trying to make is that the way wars were fought in WWII left little room for doubt as to who the aggressor was. Also, the use of military power was rather visible. Terrorism's shadowy world is different. You may not know who did something. The price of waiting until something happens has increased with bio/nuclear weapons. The targets are not confined to military installations. So, to me, the author's comparisons to Pearl Harbor & France are bogus.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson