Michael Chertoff and all that “chatter”

Michael Chertoff created a buzz, and has done a weak job dealing with it. Basically he insinuated there’s a growing threat from Al Qaeda due to increased chatter. What he has not done is say there is an increased threat from Al Qaeda due to increased chatter. He upped that concern by saying it’s something like pre-9/11. That’s pretty serious. What he won’t do is say what we’re doing on a preemptive measure to deal with all that chatter.

I have an idea.

The general assumption ( yeah, I know what assuming does ), is that Osama Bin Laden is in northern Pakistan. The US military and Pakistani military both claim that area is dominated by tribal chiefs and such and are so dangerous even the US military can’t go in to deal with it. Along the same lines, the US and Russia have agreed to lower their nuclear arsenal levels by eliminating some outdated missiles and warheads. Well, I got a suggestion:

Let’s put all those unnecessary nukes right about here:

Al Qaeda Land

To be civilized about it, we create a bunch of chatter telling people who do not belong to Al Qaeda to get out first. Then, just turn those rocky craggy hills and mountains filled with Al Qaeda and other too-dangerous-for-civilized-man types into rocky craggy hills and mountains with no man at all. Nothing lost in doing that. Then, in a few years, we can try again and see if we can do better this time.

I’m welcome to hear the downside of this plan. But, at this time, I see none.

And, if nothing else, at the very least we’d be creating some chatter of our own other than the chatter we’re sending out now that we’re too scared to say anything that might deter them in the from place.


UPDATE: July 13, 2007: Ed Morrissey does an excellent post on this topic over at Captain’s Quarters. Not so much on the topic I made in this post, but the underlying causes of why I made this post that have been elaborated on in the comments. A must read if you have any interest in this topic ( Pakistan and Al Qaeda, not nukes. )

Related Posts

  • December 27, 2007 -- the death of Benazir Bhutto (1)
    I am reading right now that Benazir Bhutto died in the suicide attack on her rally. This is awful news. I have heard a lot of speculation that Al Qaeda has focused on Pakistan since it's gett...
  • August 15, 2011 -- Balancing the budget: Pakistan (1)
    Osama Bin Laden lived in peace and completely unfettered there for a decade.  Our helicopter that got shot down going after Bin Laden was given access to the Chinese.  They have terrorists a few ho...
  • July 28, 2008 -- Scott Ott and the Obama Doctrine (2)
    Scott Ott has been one of my favorite authors for quite some time.  Here is yet another reason why: .....Sen. Obama, a man who aspires to be our commander in chief, tells us that a nation called A...
  • April 22, 2009 -- Taliban and the Bomb (0)
    News is coming in that the Swat and Buner provinces of Pakistan have fallen under the control of the Taliban.  It doesn't seem to be getting much airplay tho.  Let me see if this makes things a lit...
  • January 31, 2007 -- The Pentagon cuts off Iran (1)
    Iraq has been providing weapons and soldiers to kill our people in Iraq.  And, they've been doing pretty much the same thing wherever they can.  So, imagine their surprise and probable di...

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • http://vocalpatriot.blogspot.com/ vocalpatriot

    I thought the general idea regarding the tribal region was that if the U.S. military did invade, it would put musharif in greater mortal danger, hence our reluctance on that front. Or is that a lame excuse that seems to work for now? As for the dealings with the bombs to shelf? Well as I see it, the only downside is leaving the craggy hills. I’ve said time and again, these folks are so indoctrinated by their own ideology that the only way to reach them is to be as ruthless as they are. And we have to do so at a pace that they cannot maintain. We have those resources, but not the spine to do it. Pres. Bush got it right when he said congress should not be involved except to just fund it. oh,

  • Moonage

    In order to get troops into the area, we’d have to be IN Pakistan. That’s the problem for Musharif. Once we got in Pakistan, he’s probably toast. That could possibly allow the more radical elements to seize control simply because we were there. That’s not a very pleasant situation. Secondly, once we were there, we’d face the same problems we face in Afghanisation now. The region is so rugged and there are so many places to hide, they could literally hide in the mountains and pick us off for a decade. The US citizenry has already shown it can’t wait five years much less more. So, sending in the troops just has nothing but downsides. Sending in nukes in unison with a local neighbor/power would send shock waves throughout the world to say the very least. Probably not a good alternative either. But, talking about it publicly should give them reason to think. And, more importantly to me, it would give the locals reason to talk. As it stands now, they bluster, we cower. That’s not dealing with the animals in terms they respect.

  • http://vocalpatriot.blogspot.com/ vocalpatriot

    Well said. However…
    I am of a mind these days to take a more aggressive approach. I think we need to go on air and state our war to be truly global and our intent to seek and destroy al qaida where ever they are. To actually thump that region or other as hard as we can for an extended period with only one warning. Then, when it’s done we go back on the air and say something to the effect that we’re done talking and asking for permission. We want results now. The muslim strategy is well known: bend or die. That’s what they understand.

NAVIGATION