On the funding side, I would take 2 measures:
First: Go to each and every tax haven and seize each and every asset in them. Without questioning. Full embargo. Then, I would turn the charge of the proof on the other side. Anyone willing to recover his assets would have to justify where they come from, and their usage for last, say 5 years. Anyone means physical person, no trusts or corporations allowed. In tax haven concept I would include Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg.
Second: I would enforce transparency. Any corporation would have to make public statement of their shareholders. I'm thinking on some kind or central registration office for the whole world. In case of the shareholders being corporations, trusts, etc., such corporations, trusts, shareholders should be made public. That chain until a physical person is found. Whenever the chain is broken and no physical person can be tracked, it's shares are nullified, Social Capital reduced accordingly, and shares amortized. Any corporation not listed here, would be forbidden to make business. This way we would know some names. It's crucial that we can name the suspects in this side of the problem
On the military side...the more I look at It, the less sense I see in attacking Afghanistan first. I mean, it HAS to be attacked, no matter what they do now. But I doubt severely that they would have to be in the first place. The reasons are:
- It has no relevant military targets
- It has no strategic vaule, at the time being
- It's a terrain that favours enormously the deffender.
- Even if we are able to occupy the whole of it, won't guarantee the capture of bin Laden.
- Even if we are able to occupy the whole of it, won't solve the problem or be a significant step ahead.
Instead, if Irak ties with terrorists are proved, I would shift the military action there, to begin with. Occupy the country, and expropriate Oil resources. The reasons:
- It's a rogue state by all means.
- It's easier for mechanized forces.
- Favours the attacker.
- We've been there.
- It's leader have to be removed as well.
- It has relevant military targets.
- We would be sending a strong, sharp and clear message to collaborators. This is crucial, in my oppinion, as I think there lies the heart of the problem.
- In the eyes of muslims, won't be worse than attacking Afghanistan, and might be better tollerated.
I think we face a situation similar to that machines where you have to hammer some guy's head, while it arises briefly from spread holes. If we want to win, there is no need to hammer them. In fact, that's what the owner wants. We playing, and paying to play. If we want to win we need to things: unplug the machine, and kill the owner. As for political correctness, you can say imprision, expropriate, or whatever other kind word you want, instead of kill. I don't think I'll use them.
Cheers,
Pepe.
