Just as we must make distinctions between threats that are long-term (Saddam's Iraq, Iran) and those that are short-term (North Korea, Pakistan), a nation should know how to separate its "enemies" from its "competitors." An enemy power wants to invade your country, subjugate its citizens and steal its wealth. The last time this happened in earnest was 1812, when Great Britain tried to take back its former colonies. Even during World War II, neither Nazi Germany nor Japan had territorial designs on the United States aside from a few, relatively inconsequential, island territories in the Pacific. From this perspective, America has no "enemies." Neither Al Qaeda, nor any other known terrorist organization, nor any nation-state, wants to invade the United States and rule its people, nor could it do so if it so desired.
Well said. It needs to be drilled into the heads of every American so people like Cheney and Rove can't use it to line the pockets of their rich friends.
Americans worry about Iraq, not because of the nationalist insurgency conflated with "terrorism" in the press, but because it's too expensive: too many dead and crippled soldiers, too damaging to our international reputation, too hard of a hit on the treasury. The longer the Iraq war grinds on, the higher their 2009 taxes will be.
Exactly!
Beinart was wrong about Iraq in 2003; he supported a preemptive strike just in case Saddam had WMDs. He's wrong again now. Contrary to the counsel proffered by his DLC-influenced militant moderates, Democrats would be smarter to recognize the war on terror as a distraction from the real issues--such as jobs, inflation and healthcare--that most Americans worry about. Let the GOP have the terrorism "issue." It reinforces how out of touch the Republicans are with the everyday concerns of the American people.
Exactly! |
