Close range security is just as important as long range
In a recent Jerusalem Post article (via Israel Perspectives), Ariel Sharon said that Iran's having nuclear weapons was unacceptable. But whether or not there will be a strike against Iran to stop their nuclear activities (Shaul Mofaz denies any plans to raid Iran by air), here's a challenging question: if Iran's nuclear weapons are dangerous, well then, what about the Kassam rockets and even Strella missiles being employed by the PLO/Hamas/Islamic Jihad?
Many Americans would doubtless agree that homefront security is equally important as overseas. Yes, Iraq's deposed dictatorship was certainly a danger, but then, so would be any terrorists who infiltrated the borders of the United States. What if the soldiers serving overseas, upon arriving back home, found that they could not find time to rest, as the army would be called in to deal with terrorist attacks and even rioting a la France?
On the one hand, it's possible that Sharon could be thinking of initiating an air strike against Iran as a way of making a political gain in the next election. On the other hand, seeing just how incompentantly he dealt with security steps in the past few years, and could/did not stand up to pressure by the US and Condi Rice, it's very doubtful. But either way, if he cannot/will not take convincing steps to maintain security on the homefront, then what good does it do to say that Iran's nuclear activity is a danger?
Hence, Sharon's whole argument falls flat.
Many Americans would doubtless agree that homefront security is equally important as overseas. Yes, Iraq's deposed dictatorship was certainly a danger, but then, so would be any terrorists who infiltrated the borders of the United States. What if the soldiers serving overseas, upon arriving back home, found that they could not find time to rest, as the army would be called in to deal with terrorist attacks and even rioting a la France?
On the one hand, it's possible that Sharon could be thinking of initiating an air strike against Iran as a way of making a political gain in the next election. On the other hand, seeing just how incompentantly he dealt with security steps in the past few years, and could/did not stand up to pressure by the US and Condi Rice, it's very doubtful. But either way, if he cannot/will not take convincing steps to maintain security on the homefront, then what good does it do to say that Iran's nuclear activity is a danger?
Hence, Sharon's whole argument falls flat.
Labels: military
