home
How Will They Follow Us Home? | 94 comments (94 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The terrirosts apparently need maps! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by A DC Wonk on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:07:54 AM EST
I am thrilled that someone has finally highlighted this complete inanity.

"If we don't fight them there (or if we pull out from there) they will follow us home here" has got to be one of the all-time stupidest strategic comments I have heard, and I can't, for the life of me, understand why the press isn't mocking that all the way back to a dark hole.

Consider: do the terrorists not have a map of the world?  Do they not already know where the US is, and where strategic targets are (NYC, Wash DC).  (OK, OK, yes, the Department of Homeland Security didn't realize that NYC and DC were high targets according to their last round of grant making -- under Tracy Henke, who, before that, was seen censoring press releases while at DOJ -- but I digress).

In fact, just the opposite is true.  While we are preoccupied in Iraq, it ought to be easier to penetrate the US -- and, conversy, when we're less focused there we can focus more here on defending our own land.

I certainly believe that there are mean nasty terrorists that want to kill us and would leap at the chance.

But I also believe that they already know how to find us here in the US, and that "following us home" would be a very stupid move on their part.  (What are they, puppy dogs???)

And it's an even stupider argument to make on our part.

DC (1.00 / 1) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:17:14 AM EST
While we are preoccupied in Iraq, it ought to be

Uh, then your belief is that we can only do one thing at once??

Have you heard of multitasking??

[ Parent ]

missing my point? (5.00 / 3) (#62)
by A DC Wonk on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:48:34 AM EST
Uh, then your belief is that we can only do one thing at once??

Not at all.  But certainly, we do have limited resources.  Quite clearly, the National Guard, for example, has fewer resources in the US right now because so many of their assets are in Iraq.

But that's not the main point.

The main point is the complete logical disconnect of the statement "they will follow us home."  It's not like Al Qaeda guys in, say, Saudi Arabia who want to harm us in the US, don't know how to get to the US and harm us.  And it's not like our presence in Iraq stops them from coming here.

And it's certainly illogical to say that when the US Army leaves Iraq, then our enemies will try to attack the US, but not before then.

[ Parent ]

A DC Wonk (1.00 / 1) (#76)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:50:46 AM EST
Do you state that we should be using the National Guard to patrol and close the borders?

And at what force/equipment level do you thing that the National Guard be maintained at within its discrete state to assure adequate response to a natural disaster??

And would the requirement for the NG to patrol the border affect that state level?

Or would you withdraw from the world, and not put increased security on the borders??

Would agree that we increase the size of the military to cover what was previously understood as a portion of the NG's responsibility because of border patrol and/or disaster recovery??

I think your complaint about "they will follow us home" is that you, most likely willfully, misstate the concept. I refer you to my comment to BTD at 8:04AM today (above) and to MB at 10:28AM today (above).

[ Parent ]

How Will They Follow Us Home? | 94 comments (94 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft