Who shouldnít define whatís a threat to the United States
Friday, February 18, 2005 at 6:21PM ■"U.S. Aides Cite Worry on Qaeda Infiltration From Mexico," by Douglas Jehl, New York Times, 17 February 2005, p. A10.
■"War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told: Intelligence Officials Talk of Growing Insurgency," by Dana Priest and Josh White, Washington Post, 17 February 2005, p. A1.
I always love it when the intel chiefs testify on the Hill, because itís like manna from heaven for fear-mongers.
Yes, itís a scary world and yes, connectivity requires solid code, otherwise it exposes you to danger thatóat first glanceóseems worse than disconnectedness (except itís clear from human history that the connected thrive, while the disconnected dive). So yeah, to connect up Iraq invites a lot of short-term danger but ultimately the resulting connectivity makes for a safer world. If we listened to the intell agencies, weíd be too afraid to ever do anything, because their vote is always ìNo, donít do it.î
But you know what? The intell agencies donít define who our enemies are. Neither does the military.
We the people get to decide who our enemies are. The defense community is only in charge of the ìhow,î not the ìwhen,î not the ìwhat,î not the ìwhere,î and sure as hell not the ìwhy.î
Never look to the intel agencies to tell you what to be afraid of, because then youíll be afraid of damn near everything.
Reader Comments