One Old Jew and a Couple Self-Interested Generals Re-Create the Eighties
Louis Rene Beres is the old Jew. Maybe even not that old, sixty-three is hardly ancient but he’s one of those guys who just can’t let go of the old days. Bagels and lox, missiles and shocks, they’re in his blood.
The rest of the cast is made up of two Fox News analyst generals, one a shill for defense contractors (Paul Vallely), the other claiming that the war on terror is a war between Islam and Judeo-Christianity (Thomas McInerney), saying:
"That's what's going on. If you don't understand that, then you don't get it."
Well, I had a hard time getting the Crusades as well. Eight centuries later and it seems my heart just isn’t in all this my god over your god stuff and maybe not getting it is a badge of intellectual honesty in place of self interest.
There’s more than enough self-promotion in all three of these OpEders to go around. They write in a Washington Times (Reverend Moon, publisher) article;
McCain and Obama Must Take Note. Neither presidential candidate has made serious mention of what is clearly this country's most urgent policy concern — staying "alive" as a nation. Nuclear war and nuclear terrorism remain genuinely existential threats to the United States. In fact, their likelihood is increasing, not diminishing.
Existential threat? McCain and Obama are supposed to take note of this?Staying alive as a nation? What have you guys been smoking?
The United States has always drawn precise policies from strategic doctrine. Earlier, this doctrine was fashioned principally from the standpoint of countering the Soviet Union.
Well, we all know how well that turned out. The ‘fashion’ was to arm every rag-tag dictator we could wheedle into our camp, most of whom we have had to go back and fight, facing our own weapons. The present-day armed world of soldier-children and medal-encrusted dictators is a tribute to American Policy.
Gen. Paul Vallely (ret), Gen. Tom McInerney (ditto), McDonnel Douglas and the rest of the military industrial
complex Eisenhower warned us of pretty much wrote that policy. We taught the ‘terrorists’ of al Qaeda how to fight a major power with nothing but what they could scrounge. Now they are fighting another major power and scrounging very successfully.
Thanks guys. What other advice do you have for us?
The new American president will need to understand that anti-U.S. threats should no longer be assessed according to antiquated "spectrum of conflict" thinking. He will also need to acknowledge plainly (and plan accordingly) that dedicated proxies may have ready access to weapons of mass destruction. Like states, sub-national enemies could soon imperil us with grievous harms. These would include weaponized pathogens, as well as nuclear explosives.
Wow, I’ll bet neither candidate has any idea.
Certain core matters of strategic doctrine will require re-examination. Our next president will need to consider both "counter value" (counter-city) and "counter force" targeting doctrines - this time with regard to both state and non-state proxies. These sensitive re-examinations could become divisive and acrimonious, but the issues concern nothing less than our physical survival.
Divisive and acrimonious are nothing compared to profitable and weapon-enhancing. Core strategic doctrine just demands we gotta get out there and bomb everyone back into the stone age.
I went a little light on Louie (Kablooie) Beres’ qualifications and, after all, he’s the guy who has his name up there in front of the generals. Louie is a professor of Political Science at Purdue University. If that seems a little Midwestern for a rabble-rouser of Louie’s caliber, he was also chairman of "Project Daniel," a think-tank of sorts advising Israel's Prime Minister, the old tank-commander, Ariel Sharon. Sharon was no small-timer among terrorists himself, but now he’s out of the picture and we can presume Louie is no longer flying first-class.
The next president will have to look closely at preemption. Present Iraq-war controversies notwithstanding, there are other major perils that may indeed require "anticipatory self-defense." There will be circumstances in which the only alternative to capable and lawful preemption could be an American national surrender.
Ah well, when there are no logical ghosts out there under the bed, they can easily be invented. Lockheed, Boeing and the boys can profit from bombing nations for no other reason than things that go bump in the night. Strangely (does it seem strange to you or am I being paranoid?) the recent target-list among the preemptives include oil-producing states such as Venezuela and Iran, perhaps even Saudi.
America is moving from super-power to super-brand. Branding is the thing these days and all the rage on the stock-markets of the world. Nike doesn't make anything anymore, it just whistles up Tiger Woods at however many millions a year and brands us with the swoosh.
We as a nation don’t actually make anything anymore either, we pay someone else to make it and then profit off the brand. The Constitution? Forget it. Bill of Rights? Gonzo with Gonzales.
The brand the United States is investing in these days is preemption. No one even thought of branding that until David Addington whispered in the ear of Dick Cheney, who summoned Bush the younger. Freedom and hope, opportunity and fairness, law and education are such a struggle to maintain.
Plus, there’s no real profit in people wanting to come to your country. It gets overcrowded and goes against everything Lou Dobbs stands for. When the going gets tough in sending us your poor, the tough get out there and take what they want.
Preemptively (adverb: Designed or having the power to deter or prevent an anticipated situation or occurrence). Take note of how inoffensive a word it is, in that it does not define what’s anticipated, just that it is.
· Slow-down in defense contracts—we anticipated that.
· Declining business profits—anticipated, babe
· A little push-back from lesser (and they all are lesser now) nations—anticipated
· Environmental shift of blame for our home-country extravagance—got it covered
How should we deter a nuclear Iran, both from launching direct missile attacks, and from dispersing nuclear assets among terrorist proxies? Should the new president do more to aid and empower the Iranian opposition? And for Deterrence Against Nuclear Terrorism (DANT), how should he compensate for the evident absence of "fingerprints," and for the pertinent operational limits of satellites and radars? A nuclear threat to American cities could come from cars, trucks and ships. Could we convince Tehran and its surrogates that any proxy act of nuclear terrorism would elicit a massive nuclear retaliation against Iran itself? Any useful answer will have to be drawn from a re-conceptualized and up-to-date U.S. strategic doctrine.
No fingerprints? No problem. The new and improved, iconic and brand-sensitive America needs only to anticipate fingerprints. It’s much easier than the old system. But of course, fairness (in leaving the starting-line at the same moment) demands that Iran actually has nuclear intent.
Louie, Tom and Paul tap-dance their way off stage with this final reminder;
Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama already have a lot on their plates, but no issue is more important than up-to-date strategic doctrine. We now urge each candidate to give full and apt attention to this core issue: immediately, openly and seriously.
In other words, we now urge the candidates to seriously consider Louie Beres, who is no longer relevant enough to keep him down on the farm at Purdue; seriously enrich Tom McInerney, who profits from war; or seriously pursue Paul Vallely’s war between Islam and Judeo-Christianity.
You takes your doctrine of choice and your chances in this rush to rediscover the failed policies of the eighties. Add the Beres-Vallely-McInerney recipe, lightly fold in the opening disaster of this new millennium, stir over increasing heat, add a few spices and see if you can choke them down.