"air security lies in deterrence"

I agree with you.

While the article cited above make does some sense, it still misses the major issues....

No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat terrorism." Even under the worst
totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still cause damage. No matter how many countries
we invade and pave over, we won't be able to stop those that hate us from doing us harm (in fact, the more we go
around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).

The "generals" are just re-fighting the last war again. Say whatever else you will about al Qaeda, they're not
stupid. They found a weakness and exploited it. But that trick only works once, and I seriously doubt that
aircraft will be used in the next attacks. It's going to be something else entirely, since almost all of our focus
is on things that fly. Duh.

Perhaps we should spend some tiny fraction of the time and money and though that has gone into the "war agaist
terra" on asking honest questions about WHY we're so hated. President Bush says it's because "they're jealous of
our freedoms." Hmmm....does that really make sense?

John wrote:

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
This sensible essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal:

January 7, 2004

Business World
Air Security Lies
In Deterrence, Not Nuggets
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.

snips

But the lack of
attacks should remind us there's a sizeable gap between the desire to
do us harm and the means to pull it off. Let it also be said the Bush
administration has contributed to the misallocation of energies with
creation of a Homeland Security Department. Out another side of its
head, however, it's pursued a remarkably patient and proactive
strategy to eliminate al Qaeda and address the deeper quandary of a
Middle East that has been hurtling down history's dead end for too
long.

I agree that the essay is a bit more sensible than the majority of the
administration's reactions to America being a victim of terrorism, and
it is good to see the WSJ perhaps moderating its usual position, but
the Mr. Jenkin's comments in the above paragaph lead me to judge it
not totally sensible when standing alone.

In the above paragraph the writer implies that our security measure
have prevented harm after 9/11. What a joke. Look at the millions of
man-hours of energy; billions of dollars expended and wasted; millions
of significant distruptions of people's lives; countless compromises
of freedom and personal liberty; thousands of U.S. military
casualties; tens of thousands of dead, maimed and crippled foreign
nationals (Afghan and Iraqi, mostly); and a massively increasing
budget deficit that will probably effect our children for decades.
Oh, but it seems those things don't count as long as our country's
brave and heroic political leadership can prevent any direct
casualties on American soil and, by the way, get re-elected.

Many of those around the world who hold the U.S. in disdain are
probably laughing their heads off at the way a "rag-tag" (well, who
knows if they are really 'rag-tag' but we get that impression from the
spin-meisters) group of religous fanatics can cause such endless
disrupton for the world's most super-power by just making threats.
They don't need suicide bombers. Perhaps they are getting huge bang
for their bucks by just whispering rumors on cell phones, posting
cryptic internet mnessages, and floating bogus plan documents. What
has happened to our courage as a country? If we were really
courageous we would have long ago proclaimed that we were not going to
let our lives be disrupted out of fear, while at the same time we
would silently seek out the culprits with fierce determination. We
have a courageous military, but we are seemingly not a courageous
population. Let us reflect a little on what courage really is. To me
it is not proof of courage to proclaim, "Security at any price." Some
famous politician once expressed his leadership by entreating that,
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." He was quite correct
in that.

In the last sentence above, Mr. Jenkins calls Bush's policies
"remarkably patient." Since when does the rush to declare war on a
foreign nation demonstrate remarkable patience?

Okay all of you testosterone enraged war-hawks, let me have it now for
daring to speak out against a good ol' popular war in which we
definitely have God on our side.

Sorry that this is so off the topic of piloting, but I didn't start
the thread.

John Pierce

"David H" wrote in message
...
I agree with you.


No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat
terrorism." Even under the worst
totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still
cause damage.

On this, I vehemently agree. History proves it.

(in fact, the more we go
around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).

That is a risk, but the deterrence security model requires a commitment to
act in response...without exception. It also requires rational actors....

That said, I believe that having enemies is a fact of human existence. The
problem with perfect security is that it's so good it keeps everybody out
and nobody benefits. Ultimately, what is needed to overcome terrorism is to
have those that support it decide, "It's not worth it." That can even be, "I
hate you, but it's not worth it."

I think the jury is still out that deterrence is the most appropriate or
complete approach, but it makes sense to me as a core component.

"Robert Henry" wrote in message
news:nr4Lb.70297$hf1.12680@lakeread06...

"David H" wrote in message
...
I agree with you.


No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat
terrorism." Even under the worst
totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still
cause damage.

On this, I vehemently agree. History proves it.

(in fact, the more we go
around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).

That is a risk, but the deterrence security model requires a commitment to
act in response...without exception. It also requires rational actors....

That said, I believe that having enemies is a fact of human existence. The
problem with perfect security is that it's so good it keeps everybody out
and nobody benefits. Ultimately, what is needed to overcome terrorism is
to
have those that support it decide, "It's not worth it." That can even be,
"I
hate you, but it's not worth it."

I think the jury is still out that deterrence is the most appropriate or
complete approach, but it makes sense to me as a core component.

There are two ways to tackle terrorism.

Accept that there will be attacks and institute measures sufficient enough
to make the risk of getting caught or prevented high without causing a
massive change in lifestyle

Or batten down the hatches, pull up the draw bridge and repel all boarders,
friends and foes alike.

In the latter scenario the terrorist has clearly won, in the former, there
may be a few casualties but the win/lose is less clear cut.

I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists what
they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to normal.

This is a common outcome.

Dave wrote:

I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists what
they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to normal.

If what they want is to kill all the infidels, life hardly returns to normal.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" writes:

I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists what
they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to normal.

If what they want is to kill all the infidels, life hardly returns to normal.

If you think they want to "kill all the infidels" then we need to stop
calling them terrorists. They're warriors/soldiers/crusaders.

Terrorism is useful for changing the attitude of opponents, but not for
destroying opponents. If the goal is simply to kill, then causing terror is
a waste of energy. (Here's an opportunity for someone to discuss the Catholic
Crusades.) In fact, they'd do much better at killing us by keeping a very low
profile and simply running a successful fast food chain that also sells
cigarettes than by causing very high profile/low body count disasters as in
New York City.

If on the other hand they just want the US to stop bothering them, terrorism
is probably one of the few means they have available that has a chance of
success.

So now imagine what life would be like if we granted *that* request.

I don't pretend to know what "their" motives are, but just saying they want
to kill us isn't consistent with their actions and our language.

--kyler

In article , "Dave"
writes:


There are two ways to tackle terrorism.

Accept that there will be attacks and institute measures sufficient enough
to make the risk of getting caught or prevented high without causing a
massive change in lifestyle

Or batten down the hatches, pull up the draw bridge and repel all boarders,
friends and foes alike.

In the latter scenario the terrorist has clearly won, in the former, there
may be a few casualties but the win/lose is less clear cut.

I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists what
they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to normal.

This is a common outcome.


With terrorists willing, and even eager, to die for their cause, and that cause
is the destruction of Western Civilization in favor of an Islamic theocracy,
there is really only one acceptable way to deal with them.

That is to guarantee that if they act against you, their CAUSE will die, or at
least be frustrated.

Deterence is difficult when an enemy doesn't care about his own life, or even
those of his family. But if we demostrate that whenever they get our attention,
it will result in a net setback to their goal of world domination by Islam,
WHATEVER the cost to us is, then terrorism becomes counterproductive.

So far, the price to them for 9/11/01 has been the loss of their only true
Wahabi theocracy in Afghanistan and their only real, effective army and
political leader in Iraq.

Any further actions against us should cost them their Shia theocracy in Iran
and their next largest military power (Libya haven gotten the message and taken
itself off the board) in Syria.

But that is how deterence works in this case. Every action they take against us
must result in a setback for Islamofascism as a world player.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave"
writes:


There are two ways to tackle terrorism.

Accept that there will be attacks and institute measures sufficient
enough
to make the risk of getting caught or prevented high without causing a
massive change in lifestyle

Or batten down the hatches, pull up the draw bridge and repel all
boarders,
friends and foes alike.

In the latter scenario the terrorist has clearly won, in the former,
there
may be a few casualties but the win/lose is less clear cut.

I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists
what
they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to
normal.

This is a common outcome.


With terrorists willing, and even eager, to die for their cause, and that
cause
is the destruction of Western Civilization in favor of an Islamic
theocracy,
there is really only one acceptable way to deal with them.

That is to guarantee that if they act against you, their CAUSE will die,
or at
least be frustrated.

Deterence is difficult when an enemy doesn't care about his own life, or
even
those of his family. But if we demostrate that whenever they get our
attention,
it will result in a net setback to their goal of world domination by
Islam,
WHATEVER the cost to us is, then terrorism becomes counterproductive.

So far, the price to them for 9/11/01 has been the loss of their only true
Wahabi theocracy in Afghanistan and their only real, effective army and
political leader in Iraq.

Any further actions against us should cost them their Shia theocracy in
Iran
and their next largest military power (Libya haven gotten the message and
taken
itself off the board) in Syria.

But that is how deterence works in this case. Every action they take
against us
must result in a setback for Islamofascism as a world player.


The point is that every setback for Islamofascism is fuel to their claims
that Americanofascism is the great evil they always said and serves to prove
their point.

Its a no win and in the end it is retribution for the sake of retribution.
An eye for an eye or we will kill ten of you for every one of us etc etc.

This is nothing new, its being going on for over 1000 years. All that's
changed are the weapons and the tactics.

1000 years ago in the crusades, we would slaughter 30,000 or so of them and
they would do the same to us.

It is always the case when you have two sides convinced that they and only
they are right and have god and justice blah, blah, blah on their side.

The outcome is a continued escalation

In article , "Dave"
writes:


It is always the case when you have two sides convinced that they and only
they are right and have god and justice blah, blah, blah on their side.

The outcome is a continued escalation



This is only true if the two sides are morte or less evenly matched. We aren't.

They have reached the limts of their escalation, and perhaps have even lost the
capablilty of even equaling their past efforts, and we have barely scratched
the surface of our conventional capabilities. And should they succceed in
another major attack, we can go WAY beyond conventional.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave"
writes:


It is always the case when you have two sides convinced that they and
only
they are right and have god and justice blah, blah, blah on their side.

The outcome is a continued escalation



This is only true if the two sides are morte or less evenly matched. We
aren't.

They have reached the limts of their escalation, and perhaps have even
lost the
capablilty of even equaling their past efforts, and we have barely
scratched
the surface of our conventional capabilities.

Thats why an ill man requiring kidney dialysis is still running rings around
you.

There weapon is money, they are making the government spend billions on
security, keeping armies on mobilisation, running down the value of the
dollar.

The US always thinks about conventional weapons.
What would the government have been spending the money on its been spending
on the TSA etc?

Maybe have left it in the tax payers pocket?


And should they succceed in
another major attack, (its aready happening you are being bled dry)we can
go WAY beyond conventional. Yeh (my dick is bigger than yours stuff) Kill a
few more again, what you gonna do kill everyone until the US are left?

And they win again doh!

Yes but we can't do unconventional and never have been able to. As long as
we try to fight them with US heavy weapons, we're going to lose.
Counter-insurgency and winning hearts and minds are not our strong suits.

Shawn
"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave"
writes:


It is always the case when you have two sides convinced that they and
only
they are right and have god and justice blah, blah, blah on their side.

The outcome is a continued escalation



This is only true if the two sides are morte or less evenly matched. We
aren't.

They have reached the limts of their escalation, and perhaps have even
lost the
capablilty of even equaling their past efforts, and we have barely
scratched
the surface of our conventional capabilities. And should they succceed in
another major attack, we can go WAY beyond conventional.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG