Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to re: definition

re: definition
Robert — (archived)

That was an interesting discussion of missile defense. There are some rough analogies to terrorist defense, including evolution (our current defenses are crude but I have faith they'll get better), and uncertainty. The latter's going to be useful early, I think, as the odds of slipping into the country go down as border defenses improve.

We tend to think in terms of hordes of terrorists, but I'd say that there are two kinds of terrorists: The unsophisticated cannon fodder we see in the Middle East, and the highly-trained kind capable of carrying out missions inside the US. The latter are relatively small in number and thus not so expendable. The 9/11 hijackers trained for years. Catching even a few of that kind of terrorist can cripple or abort a mission.

I think that distinction out to be included to calibrate discussions of whether military action is the only way to combat terrorism. The idea that there are hordes of terrorists trying to get into the US can bias one in favor of military action as the only efficient way to get at their roots (bases and training camps). But thinking in terms of smaller numbers makes police tactics seem more feasible (in the broadest sense including border patrol, immigration, registration and surveillance, etc., plus international cooperation to share information).

I'm not sure about the current crop of Democrats. If you define the criteria as competency in military matters and international cooperation (not so much diplomacy as the lower-level stuff he used to do with NATO and other joint commands), then Clark comes close. He has his warts, though. The general point is that now the criteria have changed and we look at the candidates through entirely different eyes.

Given that I don't think much of Bush, then logically I think it's shame that the Republican Party isn't free to start with a fresh slate and look for their own candidate who might be better suited to the changed times. It's not a partisan thing--the same criteria we used in 2000 would have selected a Democratic President ill-suited for today. The process then produced a kind of President matched to what we thought we needed of a President back then.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (91 posts)