Markos wrote about the discredited "flypaper" strategy
earlier today. But Atrios
has a post (via
Holden at First Draft) that I just couldn't leave alone.
Perhaps no idea to arise during the entire Iraq fiasco was more infuriatingly idiotic on its face than the flypaper theory. Do its proponents really, truly think there is a finite supply of terrorists, and that they'd all like to take us on in Iraq and nowhere else? That, in other words, whack-a-mole is actually a winnable game?
Andrew Sullivan, a supporter of this preposterous theory, once had this to say:
If the terrorists leave us alone in Iraq, fine, he said. But if they come and get us, even better. Far more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than trying to defend civilians in New York or London. "Think of it as a flytrap," he ventured. Iraq would not simply be a test-case for Muslim democracy; it would be the first stage in a real and aggressive war against the terrorists and their sponsors in Ryadh and Damascus and Tehran. Operation Flytrap had been born.
I notice that Sully hasn't yet said anything about the flypaper strategy today - but if you check out his front page, he still seems to think it's a viable idea (here and here). Is he fucking kidding me?
As a civilian right here in New York City, I'd like to be "defended" a little bit with some adequate port security, mass-transit security and first-responder resources. Is that too much to ask? And I'd also like it if the members of our military didn't have to serve as utterly useless and cynical bait as part of a worthless war in Iraq. But with the Sully approach, we get the worst of both worlds: Homeland security is ignored and our military is badly weakened abroad.
Still a flypaper supporter now, Andy?