Thursday, September 23, 2004

Must Read!

This is one of the best articles I've read lately. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan!

Now could Bush pull this off? I don't know. . .I think that "re-framing" the war that he has devoted so many of our resources too might be a little risky. BUT, on the other hand, it could serve as a "battlefield adjustment", the kind that good commanders aren't unwilling to make. Something along the lines of "we've defined our enemy further thanks to the efforts in this battleground and around the globe, and we can now say with a great degree of clarity that our enemy is not merely terrorists. No, it can be better defined as the militant Islamic faith that gives these terrorists not just the false sense of salvation for their cause, but also allows the providers that support the material and training needs of that cause to carry off their mission under a veil of legitimate religious beliefs", etc etc. It may not have been the justification for going into Iraq, but it certainly justifies having done so. Anyway, it would make the WMD shortcomings a thing of the past. And it would clearly define an enemy that, as Mr. Sullivan points out, is not very well defined by using the word "terror".


Post a Comment

<< Home