« Rick Perry Wants to Protect Property Rights? | Main | Pragmatism in Economics »

Pragmatism in Defense Policy

The media and world elites hailed President Obama's executive order requiring all interrogations by U.S. personnel to conform to the Army Field Manual and directing the closure of CIA detention facilities. Several experts have stated that the enhanced interrogation methods presumably prohibited by Obama's executive order were instrumental in thwarting terrorist attacks. Historically, the U.S.has lowered its defenses (by drawing down forces, reducing armaments, etc.) upon the cessation of hostilities or pursuant to treaty (and such draw-downs have been famously criticized for inviting attack). In the present case, the U.S. remains in armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups. None have renounced their intention to inflict heavy casualties upon the citizens of our country. This raises the following questions:
On what past occasions, if any, has our Commander-in-Chief unilaterally abandoned effective defenses during pending hostilities?

On such occasions (if there were any) did the Commander- in- Chief announce such abandonment to our enemies?

What was the result of any publically- declared unilateral abandonment of effective defenses during ongoing armed conflict?


Hey, Peter Kirsanow: you know what else would be "an effective defense" against those murderous religious fanatics? Let's think of a few...

  • Seizing library/Amazon.com/Google records and indefinitely detaining anyone who sought information on bomb-building, weapons training, and defeating local security measures.
  • Banning all Arabs and Muslims from entering the United States, followed by kicking out all existing Arab and Muslim visitors.
  • Closing all government buildings, public utilities, tourist attractions, and national landmarks to the public.
  • Imposing imminent domain proceedings against any private property within 500 yards of said buildings, utilities, attractions, and landmarks to expand the security bubble around them.
  • Outlawing all private VFR aircraft within five miles of said buildings, utilities, attractions, and landmarks to further expand the security bubble around them.
  • Requiring rigorous background checks for anyone renting a large-capacity vehicle.
  • Arresting anyone caught in public without a national ID card.
I'm sure there are many more examples of state action that would be "effective" in preventing terrorist attacks.

You'll note, however, that none of the above exhibit an intersection between effective and moral.

Neither, I submit, do "enhanced interrogation methods."

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.drizzten.com/blog-mt/mt-tb.fcgi/207

NOTICE
Comments will be held for moderation so they won't show up immediately. Please be patient.

By commenting here, you take responsiblity for what you write. Any grievances with what is posted in my comments should be directed to the person who wrote them, and that is not necessarily me.

I reserve the right to delete any comment I wish as this is my property you are commenting upon, but I'm pretty laid-back so it isn't likely to happen unless you are some psycho idiot jerk. Oh, and unless you have my permission to promote your good or service, you are wasting your time: unsolicited advertisements will result in comment deletion and URL banning. This blog ain't for you spammers or the crap you want to sell.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)