On the other hand...

I do think that, like them or hate them, this event points out a serious flaw in our nation's war on terror, one which people have been talking about for a long time, but which may now get some main stream play: The "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" rhetoric.

The problem with this is that it's the old "The best defense is a good offense" strategy that really only works in sports like football. Why? Because in real life, there are no points. The “Offense in lieu of Defense” argument works when you’re dealing with points, and in order to win, you simply need to do better than your opponent. Even in an absurdly high scoring game with two great offenses and two really poor defenses, you only need to outscore your opponents by one point. 150-149 and 25-3 both go into the record books as a win.

On the other hand, in war, destroying 80% of your opponents cities, armies, population, infrastructure or whatever while he only destroys 75% of yours kind of makes for a Pyrrhic victory. You may have “won”, but in so doing you effectively destroyed yourself.

Put it another way, we’re all taught not to put all of our eggs in one basket. Sinking all of our available resources into a preemptive war in nations that sponsor terrorism (accepting for the moment that tenet of justification for the Iraq war) leaves us very vulnerable if we miss even ONE attack or (in this case) natural disaster.

It’s the reason why people in the northern climates carry emergency survival kits in their trunks. No one wants to believe their car will ever break down or get stuck somewhere remote in mid winter, but if it does happen, you need to be prepared.

Hope for the best. Work towards the best. But be prepared for the worst.

We, as a country, need separate baskets for some of our eggs.

Liam.