Strategy of defense

The Cold War strategy of playing good defense is being proposed today. One part of this is that by enforcing the rule of law and allowing for personal freedom, the ideology of our enemy may be broken. This strategy believes that the police should be the front line against terrorism in that when we do capture terrorists, they are treated like the criminals that they are instead of as POW’s. One comment I would like to make.

Please read about how well the police are doing in Afghanistan. Between suicide attackers and attacks with mortars and fully automatic weapons the police are not just hard pressed. They are losing more men in the battles than the attackers. Firepower favors the other side. Experience with suicide attack has shown that once the attack has been launched, the only way to make it unsuccessful is to literally blow them apart before they reach the objective. This requires firepower that the police of ANY country don’t possess. Nor do I want them to. A recent example:

The Chicago Tribune dated 5/28/08, Section 1 page 16. A tiny article titled "24 killed in Afghan bombings, attacks" "Roadside bombings and insurgent attacks Tuesday killed 24 people in Afghanistan, including 13 police officers, while U.S. led coalition operations killed several militants, officials said." More than ½ of those killed were police officers. I have seen a number of other examples like this one. The police only have a chance if they are armed with machine guns as well.

A close friend was returning home after the air travel ban was lifted a week after 9/11. He mentioned the National Guard was patrolling the airport, carrying automatic weapons. This is common in Israel today and has been for a number of years. Do we really want that here on a permanent basis in the U.S.?

To use a sports analogy, I prefer a good offense. Yes, a good tough defense is necessary to win championships. However, ALL championship teams have a good offense as well.