Non military Chuck? I guess your answer is to negotiate.

Sigh.

Once again, Gould's preferred solution.

1. Identify the enemy. We are not being attacked by foreign armies. We are
being attacked by foreign terrorist criminal *******s. The *******s reside in
little ****ant countries without a strong enough central government, or enough
determination, to rout them. Toppling the governments of a succession of
****ant countries will simply relocate the criminal terrorist *******s. Our
current approach is akin to cracking down on all the drunks and whores on the
east side of town. Once the cops are busy on the east side, the drunks and
whores just mosey over to the west.

2. Infiltrate the enemy. Fall out of love with
"Star Wars" intelligence and get actual flesh and blood operatives into Al
Qaida and other similar groups. Continue to use electronic spy techniques to
supplement the spies and agents with ass in the grass, but renew emphasis on
*human* intelligence.

3. Disrupt and eliminate the enemy.
Our intelligence operatives will be able to
identify specific terrorist individuals during the planning phases, rather than
waiting for an attack to know for sure that something is going to happen. Our
operatives will often be in positions to thwart plans by failing to carry out
responsibilities assigned to them by terrorist groups. Our operatives will be
able to furnish the CIA, special forces, and other groups with name s and
locations of people who need to be surgically removed to *really* insure the
safety and security of the United States.

4. We reserve the military as a tool to put pressure on foreign government who
might otherwise object to our clandestine operations and CIA extractions and
eliminations within their borders. "You don't want to allow us to do this
quietly?
Your choice, Ujerkistan, will be to declare war on the US to stop us. Consider
that option very, very carefully."

Speak softly, and carry a great big frickin stick. But don't start off just
whacking everybody in sight with a stick, realizing that you'll get *some*
terrorists in the process.

Right here is where you chime in with the BS about John Kerry voting to cut $1
billion from the intelligence budget.

(save you the time)

Right here is where I rebutt that John Kerry introduced a bill to cut $1
billion dollars from the Office of Strategic Planning- only after the office
had *failed to spend* several billion dollars previously allocated by congress!
John Kerry's bill to recover $1 billion of the multi- billion agency surplus
never came to a vote, because a couple of
Republican senators intorduced a bill to
cut the *entire, multi-billion dollar amount*

Your guess, that my answer would be to "negotiate" is just flat wrong. Sorry.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Non military Chuck? I guess your answer is to negotiate.

Sigh.

Once again, Gould's preferred solution.

1. Identify the enemy. We are not being attacked by foreign armies. We are
being attacked by foreign terrorist criminal *******s. The *******s reside
in
little ****ant countries without a strong enough central government, or
enough
determination, to rout them. Toppling the governments of a succession of
****ant countries will simply relocate the criminal terrorist *******s.
Our
current approach is akin to cracking down on all the drunks and whores on
the
east side of town. Once the cops are busy on the east side, the drunks and
whores just mosey over to the west.

2. Infiltrate the enemy. Fall out of love with
"Star Wars" intelligence and get actual flesh and blood operatives into Al
Qaida and other similar groups. Continue to use electronic spy techniques
to
supplement the spies and agents with ass in the grass, but renew emphasis
on
*human* intelligence.

3. Disrupt and eliminate the enemy.
Our intelligence operatives will be able to
identify specific terrorist individuals during the planning phases, rather
than
waiting for an attack to know for sure that something is going to happen.
Our
operatives will often be in positions to thwart plans by failing to carry
out
responsibilities assigned to them by terrorist groups. Our operatives will
be
able to furnish the CIA, special forces, and other groups with name s and
locations of people who need to be surgically removed to *really* insure
the
safety and security of the United States.

4. We reserve the military as a tool to put pressure on foreign government
who
might otherwise object to our clandestine operations and CIA extractions
and
eliminations within their borders. "You don't want to allow us to do this
quietly?
Your choice, Ujerkistan, will be to declare war on the US to stop us.
Consider
that option very, very carefully."

Speak softly, and carry a great big frickin stick. But don't start off
just
whacking everybody in sight with a stick, realizing that you'll get *some*
terrorists in the process.

Right here is where you chime in with the BS about John Kerry voting to
cut $1
billion from the intelligence budget.

(save you the time)

Right here is where I rebutt that John Kerry introduced a bill to cut $1
billion dollars from the Office of Strategic Planning- only after the
office
had *failed to spend* several billion dollars previously allocated by
congress!
John Kerry's bill to recover $1 billion of the multi- billion agency
surplus
never came to a vote, because a couple of
Republican senators intorduced a bill to
cut the *entire, multi-billion dollar amount*

Your guess, that my answer would be to "negotiate" is just flat wrong.
Sorry.


Sigh. Why the novel Chuck? Can't you state an opinion in a couple of
sentences? You obviously have a lot of idle time on your hands.

So how do we do all that without the military being used in reserve as a
tool? Is your world always so perfect?

Sorry but *I* don't have the perfect answer and won't write a novel in a
remote NG claiming so. Perhaps you should give the President a jingle with
yours as you obviously found the answer to the worlds problems.

Sigh. Why the novel Chuck? Can't you state an opinion in a couple of
sentences? You obviously have a lot of idle time on your hands.



Sorry if your attention span doesn't allow you to digest four or five
paragraphs.

Sorry to **** you off by busting your binary model of the world and suggesting
that there are more than two alternatives (unbridled aggression and
capitulation) to solving the problem.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sigh. Why the novel Chuck? Can't you state an opinion in a couple of
sentences? You obviously have a lot of idle time on your hands.

So how do we do all that without the military being used in reserve as a
tool? Is your world always so perfect?

Sorry but *I* don't have the perfect answer and won't write a novel in a
remote NG claiming so. Perhaps you should give the President a jingle
with
yours as you obviously found the answer to the worlds problems.

Sorry if your attention span doesn't allow you to digest four or five
paragraphs.

You could have made your point with the first sentence in each paragraph. I
think you love to read what you wrote.



Sorry to **** you off by busting your binary model of the world and
suggesting
that there are more than two alternatives (unbridled aggression and
capitulation) to solving the problem.

Actually you offered one solution (as a whole) yourself so I guess your
model is just a binary.

And you never answered my question.

So how do we do all that without the military being used in reserve as a
tool?

And you never answered my question.

So how do we do all that without the military being used in reserve as a
tool?



The original statement, the one you found too exhausting to finish, recommends
exactly that. See the point about using the military to insure cooperation for
our agents.