Personifying the Enemy, Continued

Kos has a piece posted on his blog about Personifying the Enemy. I agree that it's depressing that so many people believe that our problems would be solved if we simply killed or captured the enemy's leaders. It's even more depressing when you consider that this tactic works for our political leaders.

I'm in an OBL pool with some of my friends. I think Bin Laden has already been captured and the Bushies will likely trot him out just before the election - most likely dead. (My WAG is 9/24 in the pool.) I think that such an event would ensure Bush's re-election, and if Bush knows that capturing OBL would ensure victory, that he's likely already taken steps to make sure this happens. But why does capturing OBL put a lock on the election for GW?

Because Bin Laden is the face of Al-Qaeda for so many Americans. It would make Americans feel better to see OBL dead. A moment's thought would reveal to Americans that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist network of which OBL is a founder and facilitator. Given that we know Bin Laden is most likely in poor health and has not likely been able to manage the day-to-day operations of Al-Qaeda, we should know that his death, especially at the hands of the United States, would turn him into a martyr.

I'm not saying that Bin Laden shouldn't be brought to justice. I think we should do our best to capture him and bring him to the U.S. for trial. But what happens if/when the Pakistanis find him in the badlands, turn him into chopped liver and send him to the U.S. in a Tupperware container? You'll see radical Muslim fundamentalists mobilizing all over the place, in record numbers. You'll see additional attacks carried out in his name. All of this to make us feel better that we "got" the leader of Al-Qaeda?

I'd rather see OBL brought back to the U.S. alive, where we can hold a very public trial, convict the crazy bastard, interrogate him about Al-Qaeda and stick him in a very small, very dark cell for the rest of his life.

Alas, most Americans are living in denial, believing that the killing of OBL should be the main goal of the War on Terror and not the systematic dismantling of Al-Qaeda. And if you think the Bush administration isn't going to leverage this sad fact for all it's worth in the months leading up to the election, just wait and see.

What Makes Something "Actionable?"

Evidently, the President requires the 5 Ws and 1 H to be fully explored and articulated before a terrorist threat merits action.

"There was not a time and place of an attack," Bush said yesterday. "It said Osama bin Laden had designs on America. Well, I knew that. What I wanted to know was, is there anything specifically going to take place in America that we needed to react to."

Well, let's see. The PDB memo mentions the possibility of planes being hijacked in an attempt to bargain for the freedom of Islamic militants. The memo mentions that Bin Laden was hell-bent on attacking within the U.S., and it mentions the potential use of explosives. We're not missing the "who" - obviously we're talking about Al Qaeda. We're not missing the "what" - the possibility of hijacked planes and explosives was mentioned. "Where" could have been more specific, but it's clear the memo was talking about attacks on U.S. soil. "When" was also non-specific, but is it asking too much to step up security at our airports if there's a threat specific to airplane hijackings?

I think Bush and Rice were simply asleep at the wheel here.

Iraq or Vietnam?

If you've been watching the news lately, you know that Senator Ted Kennedy drew some parallels between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War. To rebut those claims, Senator John McCain, a former POW, said the following:

"I happen to know something about Vietnam, and I know we don't face another Vietnam."

If that's the case, tell me which war I'm referring to with the statements I make below.

1. Ostensibly, we're fighting to bring democracy to a nation thousands of miles away that has not known democracy. This nation is also strategically important to us.
2. There's significant controversy over whether we've committed enough troops to achieve our mission. Soldiers are being asked to stay longer than they were originally committed. Congress is considering whether or not we need to send more troops to accomplish our mission.
3. Soldiers are having a good deal of trouble in figuring out who the enemy is. The enemy is hiding among innocent civilians, using guerrilla tactics to strike at our troops. To determine who is friendly and who is an enemy, our soliders are searching for weapons from house to house.
4. Our soldiers are under constant threat of ambushes and guerrilla attacks. Curiously, the native security forces, which are supposed to be fighting for democracy alongside us, are absent or present only in small numbers.
5. Back home, the country is split over whether or not the war is justified.
6. Our troops are fighting against forces that utilize weapons made by the Soviet Union.
7. Our forces use air support to strike at concentrations of enemy troops (when and where they're able to identify those concentrations of troops) and then come in with infantry and tanks on the ground to take care of the close-quarters fighting.
8. If we pull out, the most likely scenario is civil war.
9. We've witnessed unexpected major offensives by the enemy on days that are considered holy.
10. Nations that border the one we're fighting in have taken political advantage of the situation and have backed the forces we're currently fighting against.
11. Our major fear is that, should we fail, the entire region will be destabilized. So we fight to make the region "safe for democracy."
12. Some of our soldiers are being exposed to health risks by a substance they use in fighting the enemy. Long-term effects of this substance on our troops are not yet fully understood.
13. Cities we thought we controlled at the time have been taken over by the enemy. We've underestimated the number of hostile forces threatening these cities.
14. Civilians who support us are often afraid to speak out in support of our efforts because they fear retaliation from underground forces and people who live side-by-side with them every day.

    So which war is it?

"Professional Courtesy"

According to this piece from Newsday, the PBA has gone on record about a union policy that discourages cops from ticketing other cops. They call it a "professional courtesy."

How nice... What other professional courtesies should government employees extend one another? Should tax assessors give one another leeway in assessing one another's property values?

It's about time we let those that enforce the laws know that they're not members of some sort of privileged ruling class in our society. While we all know that local politics and administration tends to be a game of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" more often than not, we can't give any legitimacy to something that flies in the face of equal protection under the law or preferential treatment.