The Atlantic

Per a tip from Nate, I read the Atlantic article by James Fallows who proposes a new strategy for the war on terror: Claim Victory.

What we can and have defeated is Al Queda's central command. No longer can an eager young jihadi "join" Al Queda, as they could pre-9/11 by going to Afghanistan and partake in terrorist training camps. Al Queda can only "inspire" and they can't even muster enough resources to hold secret meetings. They communicate through videotapes and internet chat rooms, a difficult way of working, even in the 21st century.

Most of Al Queda has been killed, captured, or isolated, and is operationally useless.

Our biggest threat comes from groups of jihadis "inspired" by Al Queda to plot huge attacks. Furthermore, the biggest weapon from Al Queda's arsenal, that of surprise and shock, was spent on 9/11. No attack, even a bigger one, will be able to shock the world as much as 9/11. The only type of attack that could top 9/11 would be a nuclear blast or some sort of other WMD.

In short, nothing happens on Al Queda's terms anymore. They cannot cause anything. They are impotent. The only damage that can be done to us, is damage we cause ourselves. Fallows compares Al Queda to the European anarchist movement of the late 19th and early 20th century that overall killed less than 2000 people, but were responsible for the killing of Arch Duke Ferdinand, which led to the cluster fuck of nations battling out WWI and then, arguably, leading straight into WWII. This war destroyed the Ottoman Empire forever, once the strongest, most progressive place in the world. Perhaps Al Queda imagines doing the same to America.

Fallows argues for a pullback. We should pullback from the warlike mentality and start to concentrate on sustainable ways to keep the pressure on Al Queda and other Islamicist groups.

He argues that spending uber amounts of money on both Iraq and Homeland Security makes sense in war mentality, but not in a state of victory in which our basic goal is to not let the threat rise again.

We should acknowledge the fact the we will be attacked again, by some group, quite possibly an Islamicist group, but that is basically the cost of doing business. We've suffered attacks before and will in the future, it doesn't justify trying to plan for every single contingency.

Anyhow, that summarizes most of his points. Then there's this article about how history does not care that America is tired and annoyed with dealing with the cesspool of shit that is the middle east. That we have a burden on our hands and that we know helping democracy and building liberal institutions is the only long term solution to Islamic terrorism.

I watched part of a segment of 60 Minutes with Ahminabijad (or whatever), el presidente of Iran. I could barely listen to him. He was like an annoying jerk from a grad school class would couldn't just answer a question straight, but needed to talk in circles like a mental midget. I find it hard to believe this doofus can be such a threat to world security. But then again, we have a C student as president, so maybe I'm the one missing something.

Anyhow, like Cary Grant, I'm tempted to move Hitler to the funny pages, it's just that I somehow think smugly mocking these guys doesn't seem to get the point across as well as a good precision guided bomb.