When it was announced that Hitler had died, my grandmother commented: “The Devil has a companion.” Thanks to our heroic American special operations forces, the Devil has yet another companion.
Many people are commenting that this event, while satisfying, portends no major change in what President Obama refuses to call the War on Terror. But it could portend such a change if it triggered a long overdue examination of America’s goal in this War.
Strategic war aims should be clear, should address the imperative that led to the war in the first place, and should be something that a broad cross section of people can support.
The War on Terror began with an asymmetric attack on the United States by a fanatical group of Islamic extremists. The interest at stake in this war is the most fundamental a nation can have: defense of the homeland against an existential threat.
I suggest we celebrate bin Laden’s demise by agreeing on the first and most important national war aim: eliminate the danger that bin Laden’s followers and friends can successfully use asymmetric weapons against the United States again.
— Jim Talent is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation and served as a U.S. senator from Missouri.
Our Miami station had George LeMieux on this morning and he and the radio host said something similar. But I think think is a golden opportunity to get out - of Afghansitan, Pakistan, Iraq; and why not Libya and Egypt, too?
Who was the waggish pol 40 years ago whose Vietnam recommendation was, "Let's quit and say we won"? If ever there was the perfect time to seriously adopt such advice, this is it. We got bin Laden. Do we have to keep bleeding hundreds of billions annually that we don't have, not to mention the greater human costs, to tilt at this windmill now that its main support has been destroyed?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you deride Obama for refusing to call this a "war of terror", and then two paragraphs later say the most fundamental interest of a nation is the defense against 'an existential threat'.
The nebulous 'terror' war that we are fighting will never be won, but clear military goals against specific human threats will.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn my mind is a picture of Bugs Bunny wearing fatigues and saying the very last line from one of the more famous cartoons:
"NEXT!"
P.S. The cartoon is "The Rabbit of Seville"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said Jim Talent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@hamilton - I think you made a slight semantic error. The way Jim Talent is using "existential threat" means "a military or terrorist threat to the existence of something". It's DC jargon, not surprising you mistook his meaning. He should have said "real" or "existing". You are, however, dead wrong on another point. There is nothing nebulous about the "war on terror", terrorism or the threat thereof. 3,000 dead fellow citizens should be evidence enough even to the feeblest intellect. The only nebulos thing is the specifics of their bases, their allies and operatives. Just because it doesn't fit into a comfortable nation-state, uniformed enemy criteria doesn't mean the threat is non-existent or invincible. "Never be won" is wrong, "not worth fighting" is wrong - "May take a long time but we will get you" is right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePatrick J wrote: "Do we have to keep bleeding hundreds of billions annually that we don't have, not to mention the greater human costs, to tilt at this windmill now that its main support has been destroyed?"
But it's main support hasn't been destroyed. What do you think the Islamist wack jobs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, etc., are going to do if we just up and leave? You really think we will have seen the last of them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRenee: Yup.
As some commie said: "Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the b*st*rd, the b***h that bore him is in heat again."
[Stupid censor-bot.]
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse