Safer, Part II

Safer, Part II - Longtime "Shot in the Dark" corresondent Fingers - a fighter pilot - observed this about yesterday's posting on whether we're safer with Iraq free and Hussein in the bag.

Have you done anything on "where would you rather fight the WAR on terrorism, overseas in their battlespace or wait and fight it here in our battlespace?" Let's see, things blow up, bullets that don't hit what they're aimed at don't just evaporate (though you wouldn't be able to explain that to the Detroit residents who like to fire their weapons into the air on 'Devil's Night' (okay so I can't remember the name of 'the night' so pick me apart!).) so.....let me think.... we were able to stop the truck bomber from blowing up the White House ...except...he took out half a city block when we stopped him/her short of the intended target. -or- Several GIs were wounded today when they..... Oh, sorry, someone will now tell me that if we just stay home in the good old US of A that the terrorists will do the same and the threat will vanish!

And there's the big dichotomy on the "war on terror" between the Republicans and Democrats.

It's been said many, many times that the great difference between the parties re the War on Terror is that the GOP regards it as a military issue, while the Dems see it as mainly a law-enforcement and diplomatic issue.

Law enforcement, though, is inherently reactive. You'are always reacting to the enemy. You're always on the defensive - and that means the enemy always chooses when and where the battle will be. The enemy, whoever they are has the initiative. With most criminals, that doesn't mean much; crime is always with us, and even criminals have constitutional rights. But that means the battlefield will be here.

If your military is competent, you don't give the enemy that luxury. You seize the initiative. You hold the battle where and when it's inconvenient for the enemy.

Posted by Mitch at February 20, 2004 07:00 AM