It’s nice to see the New York Times quote a real expert when discussing modern warfare, instead of the posers they usually interview. It’s well-deserved attention to DNI.
From the “Morning Skim: Torture Foiled Nothing“, Eric Etheridge, posted at The Opinionator (a blog of the New York Times), 23 April 2009 — Excerpt:
Defense and the National Interest: Chet Richards says that in the event of another terror attack on the United States …
“we need to stay as close to normal as possible — no shutdown of the airlines, no F-15s boring holes in the sky, no draconian security measures at shopping malls and office buildings.
This is going to take some preparation; otherwise military leaders and local officials will err on the side of caution. . . .
So one question to ask every candidate for every office in the land is: If there is an incident, a really bad incident, are you prepared to live in your home, go to work, go shopping, travel, go to church, and so on, with no more security than the incumbent has right now? Be sure and record their responses.
If the other side is prepared to die for their cause, while we’re afraid even to go on with our lives, then as Martin van Creveld has often pointed out, they’re going to win.
This is excellent advice, but it ignores the nature of politics (and the media) which is seize on any excuse for displaying righteous emotion in public. If the President, following such an attack, attempted to say “fellow citizens, let’s respond with caution here; we need to know all the facts before we react. . .” he’d be crucified the next day. There’s always an Alcibiades on the other side.
the righteous emotion of the public is a result of longtime relentless propaganda, and with equally longtime propaganda can be changed into anything you wish. The population, undisturbed, would go on with the daily life(perhaps taking some precautions) even in face of a plague. as history(and the fact, we are here) shows.