<U. S. endorses preemptive strikes

Sounds good. And, someone in the administration must be smart enough to see past the first “sound good” part.

“Some defense analysts said preemption carries the risk of causing a crisis to escalate quickly by increasing pressure on both sides to act sooner rather than later — forcing them, in the parlance of the nuclear chess game, to “use it or lose it.”

‘COMPLICATED AND DANGEROUS’

“Preemption is attractive on the surface,” said defense analyst Harlan Ullman. But he added: “As one gets deeper, it gets more and more complicated and dangerous.”

And there’s another problem. No one seems to be able to find OBL, or the anthrax mailer. Who are they going to hit with these preemptive strikes?

“Even proponents of preemption inside and outside the government concede that this more aggressive strategic doctrine requires far better and far different intelligence than the U.S. government gathers - at a time when the abilities of the CIA and the FBI to fulfill their current duties are under scrutiny.”

And last, this administration has demonstrated a willingness to repeatedly shoot first and ask questions later. “Friendly fire” and bombing has killed a lot of Allies, Americans and Afghans, with no particular remorse or regret expressed beyond the immediate sound bites. The estimates are more than died in WTC. And it keeps happening and happening and happening. Some people say this sort of thing should not be allowed on the scale it has occurred.

Are they responsible enough to target bad guys preemptively. Or will it be a repeat of Clinton and the Sudan antibiotic factory? (That was not OK, by the way. And we wonder why some people hate the US. Imagine a factory in your town bombed for the hell of it.)

Or will they stay with the attitude attributed to the Crusaders?

KILL ‘EM ALL, BOYS. GOD WILL KNOW HIS OWN!

Arf