Time for RAD

The Cold War gave birth to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), where by, neither side would attack the other for fear of immediate, fatal retaliation. This worked because, although diametrically opposed to each other economically and idealistically; both sides were, at least, rational. The new paradigm of war declared on America by fundamentalist Muslims back in 1998 has given cause for a new doctrine. Clifford D. May agrees

George W. Bush has done, probably, the best he can, to bring democracy to the middle east. His theory is that democracies do not declare war on each other, so if we can democratize more countries, well, we should have fewer enemies. Simple math has always been his favorite.

His critics contend that the process of democratization will inevitably lead to more terrorists, because innocent civilians will be killed, and America will be seen as an aggressor, an agitator and an occupier.

Well, what is is. We are where we are. While there are truths to both arguments, each has their own veiled deficiencies. America can not, and should not have to, fight all over the world just to protect herself. Therefore, Bush's doctrine can not succeed without help from other countries. And cleary, to follow the left's path of appeasement, would not make us any safer. Evidenced by Bill Clinton and his administration who tried diplomacy and tact with our enemies to no avail, witness 9-11. (Remember, it was during his term that bin Laden declared war on us.)

So, Clifford D. May is right in his call for a new way.

Ladies and gentleman, allow me to introduce to you

Random Assured Destruction
America's new policy, and some may argue that we have already initiated this, is one of assured random destruction. Anytime America is struck, we will retaliate with the utter destruction of the country most directly responsible; and then, for emphasis, we will obliterate someone else too. They may have had a hand in the attack on us, or they may just be a convenient target of interest.

The threat of American missiles raining on your house might make you more inclined to report those in your midst who are calling for strikes against the Great Satan. What we have to do is put a price on ambivalence. No longer can the Princes in Saudi Arabia turn a blind eye to the hatred spewing forth from their mosques. And, because of the looming second strike from the US, the neighbors of a country rattling sabers with Uncle Sam will be much more likely to engage diplomacy and try to talk some sense into their cousin across the border.

Sure this is crazy, but so was Mutually Assured Destruction, and it worked. Which, of course, is a fallacious assumption, but I would suggest that this was, exactly, our response after 9-11. Why not just admit it, so the rest of the world can figure out where they stand. Bush did his best when he said you're either with us or with the terrorists; but some countries just don't get it.

With RAD, we can still leverage our ICBMs, at least making them a credible threat again. We could pull our military back home from any country whose elected government so wishes our exit and deploy wherever we are invited. Which, of course, means our military would, with a few exceptions, stay pretty much where they are.

RAD may be preposterous, but keep in mind, that deterring our enemy is impossible. What we need to do, is force other countries to take care of their problems before we have to. Our new standard will be Random Assured Destruction, our new motto: "Don't make us come over there!" It's time we kicked the kids out of the house and made them stand on their own two feet.