Richard Clarke has a piece in the New York Times for those who would like further insight into why he was demoted by the Bush Administration. He offers that Islamic terrorism is a battle "chiefly of ideas", while admitting "I do not pretend to know the formula for winning that ideological war." Two decades in counter-terrorism, and 21/2 years after 9-11, and that's the best he can offer? Not that it holds him back from criticizing the formula now under trial. After dismissing a liberal western style media and democracy "at the end of an American bayonnet" , he regrets the fall of the shah of Iran.
We must also be careful, while advocating democracy in the region, that we do not undermine the existing regimes without having a game plan for what should follow them and how to get there. The lesson of President Jimmy Carter's abandonment of the shah of Iran in 1979 should be a warning.
In practical terms - an American invasion of Iran and dictatorship at the end of an American bayonnet.
Other parts of the war of ideas include making real progress on the Israel-Palestinian issue, while safe-guarding Israeli security, and finding ideological and religious counter-weights to Osama bin Laden and the radical imams. Fashioning a comprehensive strategy to win the battle of ideas should be given as much attention as any other aspect of the war on terrorists, or else we will fight this war for the foreseeable future.
Strange that no one's noticed that Israeli-Palestinian thing before now. This is what they paid him the big bucks for.
The second major lesson of the last month of controversy is that the organizations entrusted with law enforcement and intelligence in the United States had not fully accepted the gravity of the threat prior to 9/11. Because this is now so clear, there will be a tendency to overemphasize organizational fixes.
His next six paragraphs are devoted to organizational fixes.
And Richard Clarke's ultimate solution for militant Islam? Public discourse.
We all want to defeat the jihadists. To do that, we need to encourage an active, critical and analytical debate in America about how that will best be done. And if there is another major terrorist attack in this country, we must not panic or stifle debate as we did for too long after 9/11.
There you have it. While the enemy straps on their suicide belts, hijacks airplanes and calls for the destruction of Israel, we must all gather round and debate one another.
(Oh, in a non-partisan way. He was careful to mention that.)
Cross posted at The Shotgun
Thats your learned analyis? That's the best you can do?
And this is your rebuttal? This is the best you can do?
but..but you're the one who can flame with the best right? you're so smart you told a blind woman to fuck off in braille...i rather think shoe is on your foot sweetie. you're the one with the blog. thank god trees aren't dying for your childlike meanderings...well,on second thought, i guess 'childlike' would be inaccurate, since any tenth grade forensics team could ya know....tear you a new aliment.
You know, if I weren't the calm and forgiving person I am, I'd come over there and kick your sorry ass.
Seriously, if this is what you're here for, be prepared to be banned. I'll let you yack off all you want about the content, whether you're coherent or not - but if you just want to hurl insults, then do it on your own dime.