Comments on: The fragile republic

By: Mark @ Israel

Mark @ Israel — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:15:44 +0000

Indeed, AQ can only muster small attacks during these times but they affect and frighten many. And the US government whether led by a Democrat or a Republican must do something to prevent these terroristic attacks. But the question still remains, what should be the most appropriate and effective action?

By: Darkness Visible? « The Offshore Balancer

Darkness Visible? « The Offshore Balancer — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:00:30 +0000

[...] Amen. As I’ve argued elsewhere, against most threats, a heightened sense of one’s own fragility and an exaggerated state [...]

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:55:31 +0000

“But this kind of blogging exchange gets a bit old, doesn’t it?”

Perhaps, but it nevertheless affords some of us (at least from my American perspective) an opportunity to “vent” outside of the PC-speak that sadly has supplanted a great deal of the true intellectual inquiry and discourse one would expect at institutions of higher learning.

By: Schmedlap

Schmedlap — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:24:26 +0000

That’s kind of what I was getting at. If the point was to “assault” a group of unnamed people who are crudely assigned one ill-defined label, as if they are all of one view, then what are we to take away from this? That straw men are bad people?

It seems more than sufficient to say that the AQ threat is diminished and responses formulated in reaction to public concern over the pocket-rocket bomber will be of questionable merit. That is what I take away from this piece – and I agree with it. I don’t understand the motivation behind singling out one ill-defined group over another, especially if it is not even clear who they are.

Bogeymen, just like idols, can be all things to all people. Lumping together anyone whom we disagree with under the umbrella of “hawks” is about as useful and productive as calling all our adversaries “terrorists.”

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:46:50 +0000

I don’t deny the political reality of what you say but I still think our expectations for our presidents should be high, even if not often realistic.

By continual reform, I agree that there is a very fine line that separates it from “meddling” or “tinkering” but within reasonable limits, I think the kaizen approach is appropriate for government bureaucracies if we can keep them from creating sub-bureaucracies for continual improvement!

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:41:59 +0000

Again not to put too fine a point on our posts that are often done quickly, but I would modify your point about “hawks” to include “doves” (I realize these are rather “weaselly” terms in that we have not defined them) since some of the same negative fallout can occur when the “disproportionate vision of the threat and America’s response” is a result of the pollyannaish thinking that often characterizes the world view of “doves.”

By: Grant

Grant — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:28:40 +0000

For responsibility, that might be the theory but in practice it seems to me that every single leader tries to duck blame. Military, civilian, Republican, Democrat, I don’t think that there was a single major American leader in my lifetime who has taken full responsibility for some crisis.
On continual reform, that’s actually an interesting way to put it. I could rebut it with the argument that too much interference will result in chaos, but I personally feel that the intelligence community never did get enough reform to create a functioning, central, civilian controlled intelligence agency. I’m not sure if I want every president to try to alter the government organizations, but I would like a president to do more with these particular ones.

By: patporter

patporter — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:50:41 +0000

Schmedlap,

it is not a straw man to suggest that there are hawkish public figures, such as Giuliani and Hoffmann, who have a disproportionate vision of the threat and what America’s response should be. Maybe ‘alarmists’ would be a better description. Anyway, it seemed worth a post.

But this kind of blogging exchange gets a bit old, doesn’t it?

By: Schmedlap

Schmedlap — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:15:10 +0000

Well, that begs an obvious question. Why bother?

By: J.

J. — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:45:00 +0000

“…but wouldn’t the acquisition and use of such weapons actually take quite a bit of doing?”

The answer is “yes.” Similar to any other kind of terrorist threat, if all you want to do is get some ricin and attack a single individual, it doesn’t take much in terms of knowledge or resources. While that is technically a “BW” incident, it isn’t a mass casualty event. If you want a true mass casualty event (hundreds to thousands infected), it will take a substantial amount of BW agent (depending on what you want, anthrax, smallpox, tularemia), and if you want a pure agent and a good, tested delivery system, you are talking significant resources and trials before being able to carry it out.

And as with every terrorist event, the more complex it gets, the more people are involved, and the easier it is to expose and stop.