A fresh look at the stakes in this race. This guy says he doesn't care about all the petty infighting and insider dope -- just who can better fight Jihad. And, he's not talking Molotov cocktails: By 2012 the Jihadists may recruit one million suicide bombers and could align two nuclear powers. By 2016 they would deploy 10 million suicide bombers and seize five regimes equipped with the final weapon. In the next eight years, NATO’s European membership and US interests worldwide could be battling urban intifadas.
So OK, the stakes are high. So who has the right stuff to try and fight the head-hackers? I'll let you read the article. I'll give you a hint, though: one candidate will try to destroy the mother ship, another will supply the trenches, another will pull the troops back to the barracks and another will visit the foes’ bunkers. See which one is which, and which strategy you'd rather have.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Interesting that he characterizes them this way. I roughly agree with his description of McCain, Clinton, Obama....but am not sure at all where this characterization of Romney comes from. I've seen almost nothing from Mitt which gives clear insight into what is his conception of this struggle and how to succeed at it.
Am I missing something major?
I must confess I don't for sure either -- it does look like Walid is using a certain amount of wishful thinking when it comes to Mitt's prowess at analyzing the threat Islam militant poses to Western Civ. I kind of doubt Mitt has given any serious intellectual thought to that question, but then again, he may well have the right instincts, and/or some good advisers. We'd need to look more into this. How to find out?
Post a Comment