Fantasyland

You've heard it by now. Yesterday the Attorney General of the United States floundered before a Congressional panel in discussing how we treat terrorists.

The essential is that Mr. Holder apparently has no concept of war. He makes no distinction between a jihadist in an Asian souk with a bomb around his waist killing American combat troops and a citizen of the US who violates our laws. He knows he is on shaky ground here and he hopes that he won't be caught in the conundrum of his own making. But watch his eyes during the questioning:



A prudent manager plans for any contingency. Most will not happen but when they do you simply must be prepared. Is it likely that Osama will be captured alive? Mr. Holder thinks that is beyond the realm of consideration. But how then does he explain Saddam Hussein or KSH? They certainly proved to be a bit reluctant to check out when their empire collapsed around them. Why should we assume that OBL will be more courageous?

We can look back no further than Christmas Eve and a plane on short final into Detroit to see what happens when you've got no contingency plan in place.

But, let's take Mr. Holder at his word. Isn't it implicit in his statement that coalition troops have instructions not to take bin Laden alive? Doesn't that clearly stand out?

So, if Mr. Holder is speaking of a policy choice that has been made with regard to no capture then can we assume immunity for the hapless trooper who pulls the trigger on OBL? Will he be able to act decisively as ordered and kill the terrorist so that Mr. Holder will be proven correct? Or will Holder then drag the squad which handled the task into a kangaroo court for vilification?