The manual does make an argument that the authors think justifies a worldwide war against terrorism, based upon the presumption that post 9/11 militant Islamic terrorism cannot be deterred, nor appeased nor accommodated. But it does not say why it cannot be deterred. To them, militant Islam "commands wide support and even wider sympathy, among Muslims worldwide, including Muslim minorities in the West." An aggressive Islam justifies a wide-ranging war, including invading Iraq. "Even if Saddam Hussein refrained from waging war on us and our allies," America should have invaded because he would have encouraged terrorism worldwide if he had merely survived. But Iraq is "nowhere near the end of the war on terror," which must be fought worldwide and at home.
Unfortunately, the brunt of the war will be on Americans at home. Not only must they appropriately remain alert to possible sabotage at work and while traveling, they must report all suspicious activity, demanding revival of the discredited TIPS program forbidden by Congress that asked Americans to spy on their neighbors. On the other hand, they say, citizens must not report using Arab racial profiling. The solution is that not just aliens but all Americans must be issued a national identity card with biometric data like fingerprints, retinal scans and DNA, which would be checked upon any contact with authorities down to a parking ticket. The IRS would decide what is a bona fide religious institution to weed out the bad from the good. And "anti-Semitism must stop."
The example of Maher Mofeid Hawash, a Palestinian in America since 1984 who was charged with conspiracy to help the Taliban (but not al-Quaeda), is offered as a positive example of what should occur. He had earned $360,000 per year before but became an orthodox Muslim, beginning to wear Arab dress and to grow a beard, and was reported to police by neighbors who were suspicious of his bearded Arab visitors. The proof of his guilt was that he pleaded guilty. Yet, the authors seem innocent of the problems with forced plea bargains and of general charges of conspiracy, both long the subject of conservative concern. Few people under such stress will not settle for a shorter term when it is so difficult to show that mere contact, the basis for a conspiracy, was not for an unlawful purpose. And why was this not a case of racial profiling?
The authors subject the rest of the world to a variety of U.S. actions. A preemptive strike is required to take out North Korean nuclear facilities (even though they admit they do not know where all of them are located), after a blockade, even with South Korean, Japanese and Chinese opposition and with mass casualties inflicted by the North on the former in the process. Iran’s nuclear forces are more disbursed (they think) so support for gorilla and propaganda operations are only required here, as they are for Zimbabwe and Cuba too. Syria is simple--the U.S. already surrounds it so a blockade and pursuit into its territory will bring it down. For Saudi Arabia we need merely to threaten support for the Shi’a minority in the East and encourage its succession. For the "dark places" of the world--Somalia, Sierra Leone, Columbia, Lebanon, Venezuela, Paraguay, Brazil, Sudan, Nigeria and Yemen are mentioned--a new Teddy Roosevelt Corollary needs to be developed as a revised international law of nations, where countries "are either with us or you are with the terrorists," are either on the road to democracy or to going further toward tyranny.