Replies

a failure over multiple administrations and decades.

You've got that right. The Iranian Hostage Crisis was probably the beginning for us. I was 11 when that happened, but I had a grasp of the implications. The Iranians waited to release the hostages after Reagan was sworn in, partly to embarrass Carter. Also, I believe the took not of the rising U.S. nationalism during the 1980 campaign. They (and likely many Americans) probably thought Reagan would actually take serious measures.

Given that, I was seriously disappointed when we pulled our forces out of Lebanon after the barrack bombing killed more than 200 Marines. That was the moment and Reagan was the man. I have heard many reasons for the pullout...lack of national interest being one. I think a lot could have been prevented had proper action been taken in '79 or '83. Obviously, it's 20/20 hindsight, but I believe it's true.

The multiple attacks throughout the '90s under Clinton only made terrorists less afraid of serious retaliation. I never bought the whole "proportional response" premise. I hope it's been completely trashed as policy.

The multiple attacks throughout the '90s under Clinton only made terrorists less afraid of serious retaliation.

Clinton seemed stuck on fighting terrorism in the courtroom using standards of evidence that would survive a legal challenge in the courtroom. Needless to say, Al Qaeda did not have any fear of this approach. President Bush moves the fight to the military arena, where it has always belonged, using evidence acquired by intelligence operations...which may or may not hold up in a court of law if it is even admissible and generally has to be kept secret.

Which ones works best? That is obvious. If we were fighting terrorism the Clinton way we would have at best a handful of terrorists in custody and years of shaky legal work to maybe get a sentence.