Ryan, political suicide, and other topics...

Well, somehow, Ryan and I are going to have to figure out what aspect of his computer illiteracy is so hampering his ability to post on this blog. I haven't heard from him (as in a phone call) in more than 6 months... but put a glitch in his posting schedule, and he calls me four times in an evening. My friend, that's called OCD, if you were wondering.

As you can see, the "I blame Ryan" setting is still positioned at MAX. Hehe...

I know Ron Paul is a bit off center with the rest of the GOP... perhaps not in principle, but certainly in applicability in this day and age. I have also noted that he makes many grand plans for a Paul Presidency... but offers no solid, measurable means to achieve them. He seems to have taken a page out of the Democrat's play-book there.

Still, this ties in nicely with what James had mentioned as an important point in his post... the manner in which we (as a society and a government) view terrorism. Declaring war on terrorists and nations that support and sponsor them is fine, IF we are willing to do whatever it takes to WIN that war. This nation OBVIOUSLY isn't going to stand by as books of ration-stamps are distributed from the Post Office, dictating that only 40 gallons of fuel will be sold to each American household for private use. We still haven't stopped BITCHING about having to take our shoes off at the airport security checks, for the love of Pete! Forcing the American people to save and turn in old cooking oil or recyclable materials to support and pay for the effort is completely out of the question... even for Ryan, it seems.

Prosecuting terror as a "crime" has its advantages, too. I have thought about this a lot since Jambo posted it. I won't list the advantages yet... only because the hurdles need to be addressed first.

There has never been, nor is there going to be anytime soon, a UNIFIED code of international law by which terrorists would be prosecuted in the event of capture or detainment. Extradition is a nightmare in normal circumstances, but on a global stage and on a nearly daily basis... the logistics and coordination needed are mind-boggling. The level of cooperation needed between so many countries is unprecedented... and I do not use that word lightly. At no point in world history has the global community been THAT coordinated and together in purpose and prosecution, so there is little hope of seeing it anytime soon.

Limiting the "War" on terror to nations that support or promote it (i.e. the Taliban, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc) has its own problems... we can't agree NOW (as an international community of nations) what constitutes support and aid. Pat Buchannon has been pissing and moaning about our association with the likes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for years... how often has he mentioned the lack of zeal our "allies" are employing in fighting terror within their own borders? The Saudi Royal Family is STILL paying families of suicide bombers in Israel for each Israeli soldier killed... yet we still list Saudi Arabia as an integral part of our coalition against Terror. I'm still waiting for an explanation on that... and it's not very often you'll find me agreeing with Pat Buchannon, let me tell you!

I just don't know that a change in paradigm concerning HOW the nation views our efforts against terrorists and the states that aid them is a good idea right now. We fought an un-declared war against Communism for 65 years... and won. As much as I could HOPE that the War on Terror won't last that long... it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

A good point was brought up on a BBC talk show I was listening to on the sat-radio (calm down, Ryan... they do occasionally have CONSERVATIVE discussions on the BBC). NATO requires its signatory members to treat attacks and threats on ONE member as an attack or threat on ALL. This should not mean that it is only the US that responds to these threats, however. If nations like Poland, Turkey, the Ukraine, et al want to remain member states, then they will need to pick up some of the slack. We currently have about 35% of our active forces deployed between Afghanistan and Iraq, and the UK has about 11% spread over their respective theaters of action... no other nation has even 1% of their available active troops in theater.

The same show also brought up this point... perhaps the US needs to separate the war in Iraq from the war on terror. I agree in as much as we are IN Iraq up to our eyeballs, and we MUST be able to walk away knowing a stable, legitimate government is in control. If that course of action is going to require 100 to 150 thousand troops for the next 2 to 5 years, then it is going to seriously curb our ability to exercise military operations in other theaters or regions. The extended War on Terror, outside of Iraq and "the 'Stan", will simply have to remain a more diplomatic effort (unless something major changes in the interim). This hearkens back to our argument that by throwing the full weight of our armed forces and their capabilities at Iraq and Afghanistan, we can finish the job faster (and, I firmly believe, at a lower cost in lives and equipment) and better implement what we learn in the larger military scheme of things. If it means doubling the number of troops, but reducing our time in theater... then so be it.

On this same point, James brought up a good point. The PotUS has, since 2006, the authority to do just that WITHOUT Congressional approval... if he chose to exercise it. All he would sweat is the funding after the initial "surge". Not a small point, in my eyes.

Anyway, just my thoughts...