It always surprises me how many emails come in to the public email point as opposed to commenting. Am I that scary? Or is it the experience of readers that one on one is more cordial?
A practical, 'amoral' look.
The post on THE LONG WAR has elicited a number of comments and emails, at IBA and here (this is a cross post) indicating that a large % feel that either the Pentagon, really doesn't get it, or that a the long war of pressure and containment is a losing proposition.
Folks, we can't run around yelling "killemall because we have to" as the educating message.
I am convinced that any epochal, cataclysmic confrontation, and action, for the west to win, will have to come about as a result of some action by the other side.
If we observe Iraq, the lesson is clearly that avoiding the unknown (for instance Saddam getting nukes as a result of the imminent lifting of sanctions for 'humanitarian' reasons ..due to our friends in France & Russia) is NOT sufficient for americans to feel it was justified. Americans, apparently will make real war only if the other guys kill us first. I am not sure if this is a bad thing, frankly. It is for those who will die to prove a point, but in the glacial morality play of history, it may not be. Hideous, but true.
Therefore the ultimate END GAME must come about as a result of THEIR actions.
We don't have to make the message that a long cold war is impossible. They will. All we have to do, if the moral imperative is not to strike first (rightly or wrongly) is to fight a cold war, overthrow bad guys from within, educate the public as calmly as possible, and prepare.
One look around and it should be clear that today we are NOT.