Belmont Club: "I should emphasize that a limited, compartmentalized response may actually be the most appropriate policy under the circumstances, given the vast power of the United States and the military weakness of its enemies. The Global War on Terror has been just that: a proportionate, measured response using a mere fraction of American military strength. Whittle quotes George Bush:
Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
But providing the underlying rigidity was deterrence: an America that could literally annihilate the enemy society and had the willingness to use those means if sufficiently provoked.
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Philosophically, the choice between Bush and Kerry is not over the fine-tuning of policy options; it is between limited response with deterrence on the one hand, and limited response with yet more limited response on the other hand. A large number of the Administration's critics accuse it of not providing 'enough boots on the ground' in Iraq, of emboldening insurgents by 'backing down' in Fallujah yet are perfectly willing to decouple terrorist acts from state sponsors and make any American retaliatory action contingent on passing the Global Test. To be able to chicken out if a nuclear weapon goes off in New York City is to live in a world without deterrence; a world where our enemies misunderstand us even as we have misunderstood ourselves; where nuclear weapons may be used seriously because they were never taken seriously. A world where you grow up, all at once, with only belated revenge for a meal. Oh brave new world that has such people in it."
The Belmont club on Bill Whittle on deterrence, and the lack thereof.
Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
But providing the underlying rigidity was deterrence: an America that could literally annihilate the enemy society and had the willingness to use those means if sufficiently provoked.
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Philosophically, the choice between Bush and Kerry is not over the fine-tuning of policy options; it is between limited response with deterrence on the one hand, and limited response with yet more limited response on the other hand. A large number of the Administration's critics accuse it of not providing 'enough boots on the ground' in Iraq, of emboldening insurgents by 'backing down' in Fallujah yet are perfectly willing to decouple terrorist acts from state sponsors and make any American retaliatory action contingent on passing the Global Test. To be able to chicken out if a nuclear weapon goes off in New York City is to live in a world without deterrence; a world where our enemies misunderstand us even as we have misunderstood ourselves; where nuclear weapons may be used seriously because they were never taken seriously. A world where you grow up, all at once, with only belated revenge for a meal. Oh brave new world that has such people in it."
The Belmont club on Bill Whittle on deterrence, and the lack thereof.
Comments