I was driving through Kingston on Friday, for a painful meeting with an accountant to go over my tax-return (ordinarily I'd do it myself, but why don't you try moving twice to two different states within the same year, have your employer move its office from one state to another, and then collect stock option income from yet another state and see how willing you are to screw around with it solo). While driving there, I passed by the Kingston Army Reserve Center, complete with its collection of Jeeps, Transport Vehicles, Hummers, etc., in the back lot.
And not a soul there.
It occurs to me to wonder why targets like this don't occur to folks like the Iraqis? I mean, they obviously must have people in our country already "under cover"... it would only make sense. Military "installations" like this would be perfectly valid targets of war, and they're completely not guarded (at least not guarded enough that you couldn't probably plant a decent sized charge and be long gone before anyone had a chance to do anything about it). And if they're captured, they get POW status immediately (they're a soldier in an army attacking a military target, just like a USMC soldier attacking a supply depot in Southern Iraq). They're not going to "do time" over it, by definition when the war is over, they get handed over to their country, without prosecution or action of any kind. Them's the rules of war.
Why hasn't this happened yet? Sure, big cities are ripe targets for sheer numbers, but to really wage a war of "terror attrition", where you're trying to demoralize the enemy (us) into giving up, you want to make us looking everywhere for problems. Out here in the sticks, we all feel safe, because we're a hundred miles from the city, nowhere near anything considered remotely politically "important", etc.
I have to believe that having "rural america", which has always felt itself safe from the harm of war, constantly looking over its shoulder, and giving second looks to anyone of slightly-tanner-than-norm skin color, would have a far more demoralizing effect than attacking a city. Blowing up an urban center simply says "rally behind this big event!" (to wit, 9/11)... attack in very unexpected places, doing little to no real damage to our people or assets, but scaring people who aren't used to being worried... that could have a far better (to the Iraqis) effect on the US populace than anything they can do elsewhere.
So, I ask again... why hasn't this happened already? I mean, I can't be the only one to see the logic of this. I'm not so bright that this is a new idea, but I can't figure out the "fatal flaw" that explains why it hasn't happened yet. Any thoughts?
I thought you were declared an enemy combatent and put in a military prision where you are tortured for information or simply "dissapear" you.
I guess blowing up a few vehicles out in the boondocks as opposed to killing and maiming thousands in a big city isn't dramatic enough. Not enough bloodied bodies.
Maybe, but (if *I* were running a guerilla campaign), I'd be trading terror for bodies any day. You certainly can't, as Iraq, win a war of "blood attrition" with us, we outnumber them 10 to 1. The only way to even have a HOPE of winning is to undermine support for the war itself, by spreading fear.
Terror of a few in the immediate vicinity as opposed to terror of thousands in a big city I don't think would have the same impact.
Now the armory on Staten Island I can see causing outrage if it was hit. Not only is it part of New York, it's also bang smack in the middle of a middle class neighborhood, and bordering two schools on two of it's sides. Not past there recently, so I can't comment on the security surrounding it. I do know immediately following 9/11 manned tanks guarded all entrances.
(OT, why isn't your blog remembering my info, I always check the 'remember info'?)
True, but "big" events just cause us to rally around a single event. I'd have to believe that a bunch of smaller events, hitting people where you wouldn't expect a terrorist to attack like the middle of nowhere, would have a higher terror factor.
But that's just me.
As for the OT thing: dunno. I know that I find myself re-entering my info sometimes on my blog, sometimes on other folks' blogs, etc. It's all cookie-based, so maybe watching when it tries to set a cookie and seeing if the browser is tossing them for some reason from time to time. I'm using privoxy, so I always just attributed it to "something privoxy is screwing with" and ignored it. ;-)
Duh, yes the cookie thing. It would help if I put you in the always accept list wouldn't it. :)
Hmm. I never once, never, thought I was more at risk since 9/11 than I did following OK City. Dereck's pointis that by freaking out a major city, you just hit a few Blue areas. Blow up a few things in small towns (sub-50K) in the mid-west, and you get a lot more Electoral Votes worried.
In any event, terror doesn't require mass murder. Only the threat of such.