The article looks like it came from "Slate," which is a very liberal online newsletter (which I happen to subscribe to) edited by Michael Kinsley.

I don't believe for a second that the terrorists left behind manuals (and apparently visited crop dusting airports and businesses) just to throw a scare into Americans and cause them to panic and become mindless psychopathic killers. I believe they really intended to use crop dusters to spread toxins over the U.S. It certainly is more believable than hijacking four airliners nearly simultaneously and crashing it into various targets in NYC and DC.

I believe the goal of the terrorists was simple: strike out at a symbol of American power and influence. What other things are symbols of America? I thought of Hollywood, the Alamo, Disneyland--and baseball. A crop duster flying over a baseball stadium or over Disneyland with anthrax or a nerve agent could have killed or maimed more than were killed in the WTC.

The goal of the U.S.-led anti-terrorist campaign is NOT to hunt down Osama bin Laden cave to cave through the mountains of Afghanistan in winter. The goal is to try to weaken the forces that support terrorists like bin Laden. The mission is fourfold: pick and choose military and government targets for precision-guided weapon attacks; support the resistance forces; support the civilian population in the hope that as the winter wears on they won't be sucked in to supporting the Taliban just to feed themselves; and hope that the distribution of food in Afghanistan will eventually draw al-Qaida forces into the open and lead U.S. forces to their hideouts.

Everyone seems to want to know when the "ground war" will start. That question was asked repeatedly during the Gulf War. It's as if there really isn't a war going on unless it's a "ground war." In Desert Storm, the air war was so effective that the ground war only lasted 100 hours--yet the Iraqi army was one of the largest, the best-equipped, and the most battle-tested on Earth.

Saudi Arabia and other key U.S. allies in the Middle East could very well be targets, although attacking another Muslim regime could cause al-Qaida to lose support amongst other Muslims. But oil terminals in the Persian Gulf? Perfect target (although unlike the U.S., many of those countries have anti-aircraft defenses in place and are not afraid to use them).

A profile of the ones involved in the attacks on the WTC and DC show that these terrorists are indeed smart, educated, and dedicated--they are not street punks throwing rocks at Israeli troops in Gaza. This could be a long, well-planned campaign of terror against the U.S. and its friends and allies. That's why we need to respond as if there is such a campaign underway. We have to be vigilant, distrustful, suspicious, and ultra-cautious. It means we need to change our way of life. We should accept that fact as quickly as possible.

I have absolutely no doubt that anti-American sentiment will grow once the shooting starts. It simply doesn't matter to me what the world thinks of our anti-terrorism campaign. When the U.S. finds a suitable target, we should strike at it--maybe not always with bombs, but it should be attacked, fiercely and deliberately. Some of the players involved have their own reason for supporting us: Iran wants us to stamp out the Taliban so their power and influence in the region will grow; the Central Asian republics want more U.S. aid; Pakistan and India want us to lift embargoes placed against them for testing nuclear weapons. But the bottom line is this: whoever supports us or doesn't support us doesn't matter. If we engage in this battle, we should be prepared to fight it, alone if necessary.

Who decides who, what, where, when, and how to attack? We elected a president to make that decision for us. Right or wrong, if he's a leader, he should decide. Waiting is appropriate too--but not making a decision is irresponsible.

What should America do? Continue to prepare to attack the terrorists and the forces that support them, and continue to put in place programs and mechanisms to protect and defend the citizens of the U.S. Does this mean a ground war in the snow? I hope not, but it might. An air war? A cyber-war? A robot war? All of the above. When will it happen? As soon as a target is identified. How long will it be? As long as identifiable targets are within reach.

Dale Brown

John:

Yes, I think we'll need more secrecy this time than in '90 and '91 because of the nature of the battle.

In Desert Storm, our objective was to kick out a large invading army. We sent a quarter of a million troops halfway around the world and organized another half-million troops from all over the world. Nothing secretive about all that. In that case, it was better to control the media rather than deny all access.

This time, our objective is to hunt down and destroy individuals and small groups hiding out throughout the world. If they discover we're looking for them, they'll run, and it'll be harder to find them. So we need to move smaller, more mobile, more high-tech forces much quicker and much stealthier to be effective.

The politics are more sensitive too. In '90, Iraq threatened Arabs and non-Arabs, Sunni and Shiite Muslims--the fear was universal. Now, things are much more gray. The Taliban may not be the elected legitimate government of Afghanistan, for instance, but they are powerful and in control. They also enjoy some support from other moderate Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. So killing the Taliban in a massive air raid probably wouldn't be a wise move. Some of our so-called supporters have their own agendas too--we would like the help of powers such as Iran and Syria, but they'll ask a heavy price for such cooperation.

Part of the Operation Infinite Justice will be to attack military bases, weapon storage areas, marshaling yards, bunkers, lines of communications, air defenses, radar, meeting places, command posts, etc. That will be part of the overt war, the one most of the public will see. The covert war will be fought in the shadows between small groups of highly mobile commandos stalking one another; and also between warring computers, networks, and satellites. That part of the war will be in the shadows. The media will never get access to that part of the war, except only in brief glimpses or propaganda-style vignettes.

Yes, I think "Infinite Justice" will be harder to cover because it will involve more covert ops, at least in the later stages. But Bush is prepared to pound on Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, even Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, in order to flush out bin Laden and others like him.

The B-52 is perfect for this kind of mission: long range, heavy payload, no need for bases in Pakistan or the Persian Gulf region. The bases in Bahrain and even Kuwait are PRIME targets for terrorists. The B-1B is a better choice, and of course the B-2 is the first weapon of choice for the initial stages--softening up air defenses, destroying air bases, destroying the remaining Afghan army units surviving. Once we have air superiority, the B-52 has the payload to destroy the Taliban headquarters at Kandahar.

I think Bush recognized immediately that he was not going to get any support for sending troops into the mountains of Afghanistan to try to root out bin Laden, so he specifically said he would target those who support terrorists--that means he's going after the Taliban and any other government that supports terrorism. We will not have to bomb caves. Most of the battle will take place in the banks, World Bank, U.N., etc. We will strike out, but Afghanistan will capitulate not because we bombed them, but because we cut off food, fuel, medicine, etc.

Domestic terrorism will be on the rise in any case, whether we respond militarily or not. We need to respond forcefully and decisively and remind the nations of the world how powerful we really are. At the same time, we need to change the way we live, work, travel, and interact here in the U.S. The world has changed too much to go back to the easy, carefree way it was.

We need to use all our bombers to pound any nation that supports terrorists, and we need to create an American fortress that distrusts everyone. We can't afford to lose any more WTCs.

Write anytime! Dale...

Yes, I think manned bombers have just as much or even more capabilities as an aircraft carrier. With advances in the capabilities of standoff weapons, I think bombers will have even more of an advantage.

In my opinion, a carrier battle group takes too many resources just to do one thing--defend itself. Yes, a carrier battle group is a fearsome display of power. But most of the ships that surround a carrier are there not just for warfighting but to defend the carrier. Even most of the aircraft on board a carrier--all of the helicopters, all of the F-14s (except a few with air-to-ground capability or TARPS), all of the S-3s, and most of the F/A-18s are there to help defend the carrier. By contrast, bombers use mostly electronic self-defenses with a few expendables--99.9% of a bomber’s resources are there to put bombs on target. B-52s don’t even have machine guns on them anymore!

Most of the conflicts I portray are there just for plot; and I would certainly never get rid of aircraft carriers. But if I was an undersecretary of defense for acquisition or plans and I had to write a report to the SecDef about what the future of America’s military should look like, cost vs. capabilities, I’d push the stealth bombers married up with advanced “brilliant” standoff weapons, and reduce the number of carrier battle groups to pay for more bombers and cruise missiles.

Obviously, missions are different. Bombers don’t work well as a show of force or as a threat to the enemy. Some conflicts may not even happen because America parks a couple carriers off someone’s coast (like China’s intended invasion of Taiwan in 1996). Bombers can’t hold territory, help land Marines, rescue downed aircrew, evacuate personnel, pick up astronauts that splash down in the Pacific, or hold movie premieres of “Pearl Harbor.” But if you want something absolutely, positively destroyed overnight, send in a B-2 bomber.

Good luck at school and with your Navy career! Are you going to fly or command a ship?

GBA, Dale…

And then you finally get to the last message and you double-click on it and your e-mail program warns you that "viruses can attach themselves to executables, macros, and Web pages?"

THIS IS HOW COMPUTER VIRUSES GET SPREAD!! Never pass along a message like this unless you know exactly who the message is from. Even if you think it's a valid warning, DON"T pass it along by forwarding a message from an unknown person!

If I get a message warning me not to open a file, I WILL NOT OPEN IT! I'll just throw it away. And if I have to dig down more than one level to read a message, I'll just throw it away.

So let's stop passing these multi-forwarded messages around, OK? Most virus warnings are hoaxes. You should all have anti-virus programs on your computers. If you don't, then my Christmas shopping is simplified!!

The same for the cutsie messages about how some sick kid started an e-mail chain letter that he wanted to go around the earth, or if you forwarded a message then JC Penney will donate a penny to a charity to every person who forwards the message. It's a hoax. Sometimes viruses get passed around that way too.

I had 2 computers infected with viruses early this year, and so I know how bad it is.