Mayor Bloomberg is on CNN telling everyone that there is no proportionality in responding to terrorism (this is his summary term for some largely inert missile fire that launched 1,000 ships...).
Hello?
What's he been doing since 9/11, while the rest of America have been reading books on counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency (except those fed by Regnery)? Can you think of any who have concluded that the best counter move is a huge, non-proportional military action?
These words still ring true (A New Security Team):
One of the chief 'urgencies' that cries out for transformative politics is a new public education and rework of the "war on terror". So long have we been with that poor conceptualization that we risk falling into old grooves, old language, old dichotomies, even moreso if there is another attack on U.S. soil. It's not just about changing policies, in some drawing room. It's about changing attitudes, domestically and otherwise.
Did you notice that Bloomberg doesn't feel like there should be one President at a time? I wonder how the nation conducts foreign policy if its Israeli-leaning politicians rush to Israel to declare support at each critical junction?
From Lebanon, of all places, sober assessment:
At the end of the day, however, the operation only confirms that neither Israel nor anyone else has a long-term workable strategy for dealing with Hamas in Gaza. This is a militant organization that has taken over a piece of Palestinian territory but refuses to behave like a sovereign power and, ultimately, glories in the victimhood or martyrdom of its people. Terms like victory, defeat and peace negotiations are irrelevant here. At its best, operation "Cast Lead" (the Hebrew term relates to the current Hanukah holiday, besides sounding appropriate in military terms) will deliver a few more months of cease-fire and tenuous coexistence between Islamist Gaza and its surroundings. Indeed, the operation apparently doesn't aspire to achieve more than that.
