I definitely agree with you about the missle shield. I think during the Reagan years talking about it very loudly served a very good purpose - to convince the Soviets who were already stretched beyond endurance that they just couldn't keep up. Today it would have no effect - the biggist nuclear threat from a state is North Korea and there is no rational dealing with them. Besides, the U.S. would not be the target of N.Korean nukes - they will use them to deter attempts at regime change and keep Japan and S. Korea from leaning on them economically. But of course they may sell them, and we are going to have to deal with that.

And the point that the greatest nuclear threat is from terrorists is quite correct. But this is all the more reason why the war on islamo-fascism must me aggressive and we must play offense rather than defense. I have always been much more concerned about Pakistan than Iraq and I think one particularly adroit act of both diplomacy and intelligence that the Bush administration is never given credit for ( and does not claim credit for fear of ruffling feathers ) is maintaining Mushareff.

I would immagine there are a lot of untold stories there, which include a pretty serious purge within Pakistan's inteligence apparatus. ( we can tell this has happened because Mushareff is still alive )

I don't know if the invasion of Iraq was necessary, but I do know the public stuff that is getting endlessly chewed over for political reasons is not the story. It will be ten years before we know what has gone on there and what is going on now.

But remember the words Bekaa Valley.

> If you can address what is making them mad, they will stop attacking and go back to their normal way of life.

Bernard Lewis has probably written more intelligently on this subject than anyone - Daniel Pipes is sometimes too polemic for my taste. You cannot address what is making them mad because what is making them mad is every westernizing influence in every Islamic country on earth. Their grievances cannot be addressed within their own societies, even with no overt U.S. action, unless you could somehow transport those societies to another planet and purge all their citizens of any ideas that have been introduced since the 13th century ( assuming the Abbisad caliphate is not already to 'modern' for the true believers. )

You seem very thoughtful on this subject and if you haven't read any Bernard Lewis I think you would enjoy him very much, especially as you have lived in proximity to an Islamic culture.

If you can find the Sept 1990 issue of Atlantic Monthly his article The Roots of Islamic Rage is well worth is.

There is another "What went wrong" in Jan 2002. He has a book with the same title.




>Charles:
>
>I agree with you that Michael Moore is rediculously one sided and uses material that is not always meaningful. But he is probably better known because he makes movies instead of books.
>
>I have not read Robert Woodwards latest book but when I saw him interviewed he was not endearing toward the Whitehouse in that he uncovered some serious problems between Powell and Cheney; and the intelligence disagreement over the "Yellow cake" from Nigeria.
>
>I have only quoted one issue from Michael Moore's movie about the lack of security along the coast of the US. I could just as easily have quoted John Kerry. I quoted that issue because I think it is true. We both have large coast lines and it is pretty difficult to secure.
>
>The general thrust of my arguement is that we could probably spend $1 on listening to the other side and save $1000 on defending ourselves. I know the party line is that you can't negotiate with terrorists. It is on this point that I disagree. These people are human just like we are and making a tremendous commitment to their cause. I have stated elsewhere in this thread what I believe the terrorists are mad about. These guys aren't attacking the US because they have nothing else to do. If you can address what is making them mad, they will stop attacking and go back to their normal way of life.