The current hopelessly slow and inefficient interagency system should be replaced by a new metrics-based and ruthlessly disciplined integrated system of accountability, with clear timetables and clear responsibilities.
I am fairly certain that the phrase "metrics-based system" uttered in a discussion of war policy instantly emasculates the speaker. That *plop* you just heard was Gingrich's testicles hitting the floor. Is he running for commander-in-chief, or aide-de-camp?
The most enraging part of the article, for me, was the following:
We should put Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia on notice that any help going to the enemies of the Iraqi people will be considered hostile acts by the U.S.
I'm pretty sure they already know that. In fact, I think Bush might've mentioned it in one of his speeches, something about "you're either with us, or against us." The problem isn't that they don't know it, it's that they've become convinced that we're not going to do anything about it. I submitted the following as a reader response, and OpinionJournal printed it:
"We should put Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia on notice that any help going to the enemies of the Iraqi people will be considered hostile acts by the U.S."
No! We should declare war on them, and raze them to the ground. Enough talk already! The Bush administration has already proven it knows how to talk. It should prove that it knows how to fight a war. A whole war, not half of a war.
George W: "Read my lips... no state sponsors of terrorism."
I think we heard something like that before.
And that's really the problem. Bush is an apple that fell too close to the tree. He's fought half of a war, just like his father; and he's shown that he can read a good speech with apparent conviction, but when it comes to acting on his words, he goes all wobbly. It's time to end the state sponsors of terrorism, in particular Iran, and he needs to find some backbone.