Richard Clarke still has no answers

TigerHawk:

Kerry advisor and anti-terrorism expert Richard Clarke has an op-ed piece in The New York Times this morning that exemplifies what is wrong with the approach of most Democrats to national security. Clarke argues that any attempt to bomb Iran would backfire, in that Iran has many means by which it could retaliate, and that it is not at all clear that the United States could achieve "escalation dominance, the condition in which the other side fears responding because they know that the next round of American attacks would be too lethal for the regime to survive."¹

Clarke's enumerated concerns -- they are all too familiar to anybody who has been reading the work of people who have been thinking seriously about the Iran crisis -- are valid, and they trouble me as well. The problem is that his essay does not say what the United States should do about the intersection between Iran's hideous government and its all-but-admitted nuclear weapons program. Not only does Clarke not say what we should do (as opposed to what we should not do, which he is quite explicit about), he does not have the stones to say that he thinks we should resign ourselves to a nuclear Iran and work on a plan to contain it.

...

Clarke represents all that is wrong with the Democrats in the war on terror. He is all criticism and no ideas for solving the problem. His response to the enemy is to say "Don't just do something, stand there." When is the last time you heard a Democrat give any idea on how we can win the war?