Hi,
Quite honestly, I don’t see any thing particularly James-Bondish or exuberant about the suggestions that I have made regarding using technology to help the security situation. I mean what is difficult about establishing intelligent data bases for the population of neighborhoods; even children have become experts with computers and data bases. As for systems to monitor movements of travelers, vehicles etc., I am sure that an abundance of such software is abundant everywhere, and particularly in the U.S.
Richard B. has written in the comments section several times describing practical and very interesting technical solutions to many of the problems that we are facing. As for biometric identification and such, isn’t this technology very common nowadays and used even in the most humble of offices, not to mention passports, airports etc. etc.
Explosive detection technology exists, and we even heard that some equipment is already in place in Iraq. And I don’t even think that the cost of such things is as high as we are led to believe. I mean when the War is costing the staggering figures that you all know, what would be the significance of some expenditure on computers, some gadgets for identity detection etc. etc. ?
Some people talk again about Iraqis taking responsibly, forgetting that this is precisely the Iraqi demand and that the Government has been insisting on this question. They forget that the new strategy and the new security plan was originally proposed by the Iraqis themselves and accepted by the President. Of course American help is very important but the plan essentially envisaged a supporting role for the American forces by guarding the periphery of Baghdad, while Iraqi forces carries out the work inside the city. Since it is also a demand of the American people, why not let the Iraqis do what they are claiming they can do without too much interference? In fact they should be charged with the responsibility quite definitely and visibly in a way that the excuse of not having enough authority cannot be used by anybody again. Besides, Maliki-bashing is not very useful at this particular juncture, because that is all what we have right now, unless one wants to dismantle the entire political process and undo the work that has been done with blood, sweat and treasure. And to be sure, that is precisely what enemy is longing for; to dismantle the political process and cancel the idea of democracy altogether. That is their real objective whether secret terrorists, or political figures hypocritically joining the political process only to subvert it, with one keen eye on the public and official mood in U.S., adapting their tactics precisely according to the signals that are coming from there. They are counting on the disarray and confusion, and adapting their methods, including escalation and de-escalation of terrorist acts accordingly. President Bush understands the situation and the stakes, but even he can be sometimes influenced by domestic pressures. However, we must express appreciation of his perseverance and endurance.
And what’s all this about Iran and taking on Iran. It is not as though we have managed over here even to control one miserable city, to start thinking of embarking on a perilous course against the colossus of Iranian quick sands. It is alright to make some noises, but I am sure the U.S. leadership fully understands that there are very few real options available. Compared to other options, the best, easiest and only practical course available to thwart the Iranian regime is to succeed in Iraq. Besides, it is wrong to turn this matter into an assault on the Iranian nation, and not on the theocratic regime. This is precisely what that regime wants, and it explains the polemics of this ridiculous new president, Ahmadi Najad, who according to my youngest son looks more like a plumber than a president. As for their alleged role in Iraq, I think it is wildly exaggerated by those, in Iraq and in the region, who are playing on American phobias to serve their own particular agendas. It is wrong to confuse the issues before cleaning up the act in Iraq. In fact, the Iranian regime would rather have a confrontation at this particular time when the American situation is such as it is in Iraq. And as I have said before, the relations between the Shiaas, (and the Kurds, for that matter) and the Iranians are reciprocally proportional to the state of their relations with the Americans.
So let’s cut the nonsense and concentrate on the tasks ahead, and try to do everything possible to achieve success, with the available resources, which is possible; for the cost of failure is unthinkable even from the purely selfish view point of the interests of the U.S. alone. Need we explain these consequences in a kind of “idiots guide to woe and disaster”? I have too much respect for my friends here on this blog to even think of it.
Regards
Quite honestly, I don’t see any thing particularly James-Bondish or exuberant about the suggestions that I have made regarding using technology to help the security situation. I mean what is difficult about establishing intelligent data bases for the population of neighborhoods; even children have become experts with computers and data bases. As for systems to monitor movements of travelers, vehicles etc., I am sure that an abundance of such software is abundant everywhere, and particularly in the U.S.
Richard B. has written in the comments section several times describing practical and very interesting technical solutions to many of the problems that we are facing. As for biometric identification and such, isn’t this technology very common nowadays and used even in the most humble of offices, not to mention passports, airports etc. etc.
Explosive detection technology exists, and we even heard that some equipment is already in place in Iraq. And I don’t even think that the cost of such things is as high as we are led to believe. I mean when the War is costing the staggering figures that you all know, what would be the significance of some expenditure on computers, some gadgets for identity detection etc. etc. ?
Some people talk again about Iraqis taking responsibly, forgetting that this is precisely the Iraqi demand and that the Government has been insisting on this question. They forget that the new strategy and the new security plan was originally proposed by the Iraqis themselves and accepted by the President. Of course American help is very important but the plan essentially envisaged a supporting role for the American forces by guarding the periphery of Baghdad, while Iraqi forces carries out the work inside the city. Since it is also a demand of the American people, why not let the Iraqis do what they are claiming they can do without too much interference? In fact they should be charged with the responsibility quite definitely and visibly in a way that the excuse of not having enough authority cannot be used by anybody again. Besides, Maliki-bashing is not very useful at this particular juncture, because that is all what we have right now, unless one wants to dismantle the entire political process and undo the work that has been done with blood, sweat and treasure. And to be sure, that is precisely what enemy is longing for; to dismantle the political process and cancel the idea of democracy altogether. That is their real objective whether secret terrorists, or political figures hypocritically joining the political process only to subvert it, with one keen eye on the public and official mood in U.S., adapting their tactics precisely according to the signals that are coming from there. They are counting on the disarray and confusion, and adapting their methods, including escalation and de-escalation of terrorist acts accordingly. President Bush understands the situation and the stakes, but even he can be sometimes influenced by domestic pressures. However, we must express appreciation of his perseverance and endurance.
And what’s all this about Iran and taking on Iran. It is not as though we have managed over here even to control one miserable city, to start thinking of embarking on a perilous course against the colossus of Iranian quick sands. It is alright to make some noises, but I am sure the U.S. leadership fully understands that there are very few real options available. Compared to other options, the best, easiest and only practical course available to thwart the Iranian regime is to succeed in Iraq. Besides, it is wrong to turn this matter into an assault on the Iranian nation, and not on the theocratic regime. This is precisely what that regime wants, and it explains the polemics of this ridiculous new president, Ahmadi Najad, who according to my youngest son looks more like a plumber than a president. As for their alleged role in Iraq, I think it is wildly exaggerated by those, in Iraq and in the region, who are playing on American phobias to serve their own particular agendas. It is wrong to confuse the issues before cleaning up the act in Iraq. In fact, the Iranian regime would rather have a confrontation at this particular time when the American situation is such as it is in Iraq. And as I have said before, the relations between the Shiaas, (and the Kurds, for that matter) and the Iranians are reciprocally proportional to the state of their relations with the Americans.
So let’s cut the nonsense and concentrate on the tasks ahead, and try to do everything possible to achieve success, with the available resources, which is possible; for the cost of failure is unthinkable even from the purely selfish view point of the interests of the U.S. alone. Need we explain these consequences in a kind of “idiots guide to woe and disaster”? I have too much respect for my friends here on this blog to even think of it.
Regards
No comments:
Post a Comment