But here, cleverly disguised
as a bomb, is a bomb
--The Bullwinkle Show (1961)
I like to watch
--Chance the Gardener,
Being There (1979)
____________
as a bomb, is a bomb
--The Bullwinkle Show (1961)
I like to watch
--Chance the Gardener,
Being There (1979)
____________
Eric Holder's announcement of the foiled Times Square would-be bomber's ties to Pakistan was hailed as an intelligence victory, despite the rather large hint that Mr. Faisal Shahzad boarded a plane to that country after his would-be firework show fizzled.
Forgetting for a moment the odd fact that the car was left parked illegally at one of the busiest intersections in the country (as one source close to the investigation noted to AOL news today) -- why are we seeing a small cottage industry we might call, Bombers Manque, Inc.? The source noted:
"The Nissan Pathfinder carrying fireworks, nonexplosive fertilizer, gasoline tanks, propane and alarm clocks was left Saturday in a turn-only lane -- lights and flashers on and motor running -- in one of the busiest intersections in the world, this person noted to AOL News (Times Square Bomb: "It Doesn't Make any Sense.)"
On the same page as the original 5/5 story (Catching Bomb Suspect was Rare Moment for Holder to Celebrate) was an article stating that a U.S. missile strike killed six in Pakistan (last Sunday, 10 more were killed, and today, 14 --"U.S. Drone Strikes Kill 14.") And the would-be Times Square bomber has ties to Pakistan ... imagine that? As Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C. would say, GOL-LY!
This isn't rocket science. The U.S. is killing Pakis and Talibs, and of course, they will respond. Stimulus - Response, a physical reaction. Does the U.S. imagine they will sit on their thumbs forever in the face of such provocation?
Why does the U.S. not consider ceasing aggressive killings in Pakistan, thereby defusing their need to reactively target the U.S. homeland?
If killing Pakistanis in Pakistan is o.k., then why isn't it o.k. for Pakis to kill Americans in America?
Because "we" are the good guys and it is never ok to kill the good guys.
ReplyDeleteAEL,
ReplyDeleteI don't know about you , but i wear a white Stetson.
jim
jim: I'd caveat this with the observation that even if we stopped the drone strikes this afternoon we'll probably be dealing with this for a long time.
ReplyDeleteLeo Pitts had a good column the other day (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/05/living_with_risk_is_the_cost_o.html) talking about the reality that the U.S., with it's relatively open borders and circumspect police presence, has always and will always have these bombings and/or shootings. We made the choice to accept that rather than be stopped and searched every time we go out in public.
Chief,
ReplyDeleteWhat bombings are we talking about.
The WTC bombing is ancient history.
Was there a bombing attack of which i'm unaware?
Weren't all the attacks we've seen crude and unsuccessful?
Please note that there's a real big difference between the word PROBABLY and that of definitely.
We don't know what would happen if we quit fucking with AFPAK, but i'd postulate that it couldn't be worse than what we have on our plates today.
If both of us had the same level of expertise as these supposed terrorists then we'd both be dead already. These guys have no notable training nor equipment. We should remember that the AK only has a 460 m effective range.
My point is that at the institutional level our leaders don't have a clue and they remind me of an olympic bob sled crew. The can't turn back and they can't get out until they've bottomrsd out or crashed.
jim
Chief,
ReplyDeleteWhat bombings are we talking about.
The WTC bombing is ancient history.
Was there a bombing attack of which i'm unaware?
Weren't all the attacks we've seen crude and unsuccessful?
Please note that there's a real big difference between the word PROBABLY and that of definitely.
We don't know what would happen if we quit fucking with AFPAK, but i'd postulate that it couldn't be worse than what we have on our plates today.
If both of us had the same level of expertise as these supposed terrorists then we'd both be dead already. These guys have no notable training nor equipment. We should remember that the AK only has a 460 m effective range.
My point is that at the institutional level our leaders don't have a clue and they remind me of an olympic bob sled crew. The can't turn back and they can't get out until they've bottomed out or crashed.
jim
A lot of ink was spilt about how incurious GW was. If the GWoT has proven anything, it was that GW is typical of the general population, and not some outlier.
ReplyDeleteI really think someone needs to write a book: "Everything I needed to learn about National Security I learned from Monty Python"
jim: read the Pitts story. We've had bombings and "terror" attacks here going back to the Anarchists and the labor disputes of the 1880s. "Terror" is nothing new and nothing surprising or shocking here; the only new thing is the GWOT-screamers ability to convince the dummies any different.
ReplyDeleteSome interesting data on the radicalization of some folks who are citzens or otherwise legally in the U.S.: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100512_setting_record_grassroots_jihadism?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100513&utm_content=readmore&elq=8110758281a548cc9189b018a3a37800
ReplyDeleteIt's clear these types of attacks aren't going to stop. It's also clear that some of the bad guys are going to be U.S. citizens. Is Ranger right in his "eye for an eye" thesis? Well, I suspect he is in some respects, but it's also clear we have some issues with assimilation in some cases. This makes the domestic security job much more difficult; fortunately, most of the bad guys have been pretty inept so far.
Frankly, it's my sense that now the self-styled jihadis have tasted blood and have learned just how easy it is to get placement and access to targets, we'd still see attacks even if we weren't killing Paks or Afghans.
Think Israel. Israel is always the excuse for any asshole who wants to take on the Great Satan.
Publius,
ReplyDeleteIt's an assumption to say that we'd still be a target, if we left theater.
We have no way to verify your position. It may or may not hold water.
BTW- it's not my theory about eye for eye-it's their reality.
jim
Chief,
ReplyDeleteAll terror is not the same.
We often fail to recognize this fact.
I'll try to read the article, hopefully it has pictures.
jim
Ranger: It's an assumption to say that we'd still be a target, if we left theater.
ReplyDeleteWe have no way to verify your position. It may or may not hold water.
Point taken, my friend, but you're making an assumption, too. Bin Laden has told us that Israel is the crunch point. We've gotten beyond the horseshit about how they don't like our way of life—a fable brought to us by GW Bush and the rest of government—to the real nitty-gritty. Seems they don't like us for what we DO rather than for what we ARE. Progress of sorts, one supposes, but it doesn't do much to address the problem. We can get out of AF-Pak, but we can't, or more accurately, won't do anything about Israel. I think they'll keep it up. We weren't in AfPak in the 90s. They still went after us.
Publius,
ReplyDeleteAnd what is it we should "do" about a sovereign nation?
Here's a good bit from "Spengler", who writes in Asia Times: Godfather Obama Makes an Offer Israel Can Refuse
Publius,
ReplyDeleteYes they went after us in the 90's.Exactly factual.
BUT who were they???Did they originate in AFPAK or Saudi Arabia or Egypt? The attack of a pawn is not a King or queens gambit.
And of course i make assumptions , but i clearly state this fact, as do you, usually.
Both of us know that assumptions are essential for planning purposes, but also that they are not facts , nor should they be accepted as such.This cmt is not to you, but to our readers.
For example- how many courses of action do we as a nation have in theater.As a dumb ass i can come up with several, BUT YET, all we ever hear is that we don't quit. Is that a fact upon which we hang national strategic planning?
It seems so and WASF'd since we will not, cannot, or do not consider alternative policies.
If a 2 LT ran a platoon the way the NCA runs this shooting match, he'd have his dog tags bent.
Your friend,
jim