Thursday, April 26, 2007


Rebutting the majority pansies in the House and Senate, Hanson offers six reasons to continue the offensive.

Fifth, everything from our 401(k) plans to municipal water plants depend on sophisticated computers and communications. And you don't need a missile to take them down. Two oceans no longer protect the United States - not when the Internet knows no boundaries, our borders are relatively wide open, and dozens of ships dock and hundreds of flights arrive daily.

A germ, some spent nuclear fuel or a vial of nerve gas could cause as much mayhem and calamity as an armored division in Hitler's army. The Soviets were considered rational enemies who accepted the bleak laws of nuclear deterrence. But the jihadists claim that they welcome death if their martyrdom results in thousands of dead Americans.

Finally, radical Islamists largely arise from the oil-rich Middle East. Since 9/11, the price of oil has skyrocketed, transferring trillions of dollars from successful Western, Indian and Chinese economies to unsuccessful Arab and Iranian autocracies.

Terrorists know that blowing up a Saudi oil field or getting control of Iraqi petroleum reserves - and they attempt both all the time - will alter the world economy. Even their mere threats give us psychological fits and their sponsors more cash.

This is a strange war. Our successes in avoiding attack convince some that the real danger has passed. And when we kill jihadists abroad, we are told it is peripheral to the war or only incites more terrorism.

But despite the current efforts at denial, the war against Islamic terrorism remains real and deadly. We can't wish it away until Middle Eastern dictatorships reform - or we end their oil stranglehold over the world economy.

Bush's foreign policy is a victim of its own success.


Dude said...

How do you convince a hot war to go cold when mutual assured destruction is acceptable to one of the combatants?

The only way to win this war in the long run is to devalue oil. We should put together a Manhattan Project to replace the internal combustion engine with its non-petroleum-fueled successor.

Tom said...

We already have nuclear power that would relieve heating oil and coal to the point of reducing prices and requiring no importation, but no one will step up for it politically.

The free market is already developing hybrid cars that individuals are modifying to get over 100 miles per gallon. The market is reacting to the world in pretty realistic way.

Not needing oil or needing less of it will ease the pressure in which we have to be offensive with this war, but terrorist attacks against us are still possible and likely. We're the godless satan whether or not we buy their oil.

Dude said...

True, we remain godless satans, but getting the world off oil would sure put a crimp in the Arab funding of global terrorism if they go back to an economy where money comes from selling afghans instead of oil.

Tom said...

I could have used an afghan during my recovery.

Dude said...

I propose a ban on "freedom blankets".

By the way, when there was a call to ban French products several years ago when they wouldn't allow us to fly through their airspace, I chose to ignore the ban and continue buying my beloved Perrier. Well, they recently went to plastic bottles instead of glass and I don't know if it is related, but the last two cases I've bought at Costco have produced more flat water than effervescent, so for that reason, my boycott has officially begun.

Tom said...

It takes too many ships to get those bubbles over the big waves.

Let me suggest the SO CLEAR sparkiling water at Wal-Mart. It's $2.88 a 12-pack, crisp and refreshing.

Post a Comment