You might ask any of the following if weakness contributed to their situations;
Robert a. Levinson (hostage or dead in Iran), Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell (hostages of FARC for a half-dozen years), Joshua Fattel, Sarah Shroud and Shane Bauer (Iranian Hostages), Eugene Armstrong (beheaded), Nick Berg (beheaded), Daniel Pearl (beheaded), Thomas Humill (escaped captivity), Heather Mercer and Dayna Curry (most likely ransomed out of captivity), Richard Phillips (Captain of captured ship - former hostage).........actually the list is endless. These people are experts too.....cite them.Comment Posted By Dave Heller On 6.08.2009 @ 06:37
M. Renolds #10/11
Does my previous response satisfy your desires for a cite? How about as the Romans would say:
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" (if you desire peace, prepare for war.) Thats authoritative.... since they secured an empire for 1500 years.Comment Posted By Dave Heller On 6.08.2009 @ 06:11
Well actually I can cite on authority who equates American weakness with increased acts of terror/hostage taking:
* In October 22, 1983, the 241 U.S. Marines were murdered by Hezbollah, along with countless others injured. Consistent with the April attack, America not only did nothing to respond, but America packed up and left Lebanon. America’s non-response–for which President Reagan was never called to talk–and its swift pullout were specifically cited by Osama Bin Laden as proof that America didn’t have the will to make its enemies pay . . . or even to survive. He cited:
"the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier, who is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983, when the Marines fled."...UBL
And... from the horses mouth so to speak, ............."when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse." Interview with Bin Laden post 9/11.
This is about as authoritative as you can get on the issues of terrorism and the use of force.Comment Posted By Dave Heller On 6.08.2009 @ 06:06
Actually, I believe your wrong. Perhaps I'm somewhat shallow or biased, but after 24 years of naval service as an Intelligence Officer, and another 6 years working in Counterterrorism, my experiences have taught me that it is the lack of penalty that encourages acts against American interests. Americans are abused because acts against Americans are rewarded, either by the U.S. directly, or through acclaim and accolades at home. Countries are like people; they respond positively to rewards, and negatively to punishment. For Example: Piracy on the Horn of Africa is very lucrative, and will not be eliminated until it simply becomes too painful to continue. Should we actually wish to stop piracy, (and I see no evidence that we do wish to stop it) we could do so in 30 minutes of intensive bombing of the homes and loved ones of those who participate in it. If we destroy all the pirates hold dear, they will stop. Thus it has always been. Piracy has never ever been stopped at sea. It has always ended with an attack on the home-bases of of pirate fleets. But, the U.S. won't do that. Too messy, too dirty, really just too mean. Countries act in the same manner; Libya comes immediately to mind - when they thought we were serious, the behavior of the Libyans changed (bombing the beejeebees out of Iraq focused their attention). Don't go with the false sophistry of the complexity of the world; it's not more complex, just more lethal. Our interests remain the same; the life, security and health of our people, the integrity of our nations territory, the equity of our relationships.Comment Posted By Dave Heller On 5.08.2009 @ 13:41
Actually, Panetta isn't going to "ride herd" of the competing elements of the intelligence community at all. He's going to be responsible for the CIA alone... and he will not give the daily briefing to the President. The new Director Of National Intelligence (DNI) will "ride herd" on the competing elements of the Intelligence community, and he gives the Daily Presidential Briefing. Rick Moran - - your ignorance is showing...., and Mike Scheurer was dead-on....Panetta is a partisan hack who's appointment makes as much sense as having your Pool Boy providing financial advise. He's a really good Pool Boy so he'll probably be a good financial advisor -- - plus he's loyal and will watch your back.
Since you are such an expert, you already know that the CIA still prepares the PDB. And given your vast knowledge of politics, perhaps you could inform us why Panetta is a "hack" - if you even know the meaning of the word - and not a competent manager whose post congressional career has been a distinguished one in both academia and at his own think tank.
Oh, and you're right. What was I thinking! There are no "competing interests" at the CIA! Curse me for my ignorance.
I will say for the third time since it is evident that reading is not one of your stronger skills that yes, Obama could have and probably should have chosen someone from inside the community. For reasons I explain above (echoed by many analysts after I had posted) it wasn't possible.
Hence, Panetta is the probably the best choice he could have made under the circumstances.
ed.Comment Posted By Dave Heller On 8.01.2009 @ 12:16
Pages (1) :