Quote:
Originally posted by KirkVining
We had a lot of over-reactions in the intelligence realm due to the abuses in the 60's. A lot of these need to go away. We have to give the CIA and Special Forces descretionary powers in the use of assasination outside of the US. If this is the new war, and they are soldiers, then it is their job to kill the enemy. I would consider waging war as the Israelis do against Hamas to be the model. If our guys have to associate with Mafia hit men or Russian mobsters to get the job done, so be it. To me, if our intelligence people pick up a phone conversation of two foriegn nationals plotting our doom and some minimal amount of follow up survelliance determines they are up to no good in the jugdement of someone we have empowered to act for us, those people should be killed. As I stated, this would require a new type of soldier, one who is much better paid and educated and who has been psychologically evaluated and conditioned for stress. Given what we waste on enormous bombers and such, that would not be all that impossible.
We would probably need some pretty sophisticated oversight and verification tools, but I can't help but think this is the new model of war and we will have to accept it as it is fought, the same way we have to accept that we sometimes have to kill innocent women and children to wipe out a government that threatens our own citizens. It may not be pleasant at first, I am sure there will be some abuses, but it will make the world a much harder place for terrorists to operate and recruit in. This current Iraq "flypaper" theory is ridiculous - waging war in a reactive mode, telling our soldiers to stand around Iraq and wait to get shot while we hope the "terrorists" come there. I, and Sen. Kerry by the way is too, am proposing a proactive approach to terrorism rather than this reactive fantasy of Bush's.
|
Kind of schizophrenic carrying-on two very interesting lines of inquiry on a single thread.
Though I agree with the new type of war paradigm, and I agree that we need military, intelligence, and clandestine services tailored to that threat, I also fear the evolving sophistication.
Isn't it Z who frequently posts reminders of "1984's" use of war to deprive people of liberty? I think that is a danger. Its like that damnable USA Patriot Act. Yes, its been useful for law enforement. I believe that when liberal Demo senatros can find no fault with its implementation that it really has not been abused. But its a damned dangerous precedent and I hate it.
So I recognize a new warfare and the need for protection and confrontation. But I fear we may give away too much liberty in pursuit of the unattainable--perfect security.
B