And let’s pretend there isn’t an election coming up next week, as I don’t care about that. I want to talk about the long-term martial strategy that has been pursued by the administration. It is the position of many that the bring-it-on strategy of taking the war to the jihadist’s turf – and never mind that the idea of Iraq being Jihad Central is at least questionable – is the best way to provide for the nation’s defense. Keep them busy over there so they can’t come over here sums it up fairly, I think.
But over on Bane’s blog, the original kill-them-all advocate is now openly worrying that Mr. bin Laden’s unexpected appearance means a serious attack is imminent. If an attack of 9/11 proportions takes place, would this be enough to convince anyone that the bring-it-on strategy is not the correct one for defense and ultimate victory? Or am I correct in assuming that as the neocon war impulse is at heart a utopian one, most people would clamor for more of what isn’t working, just as they do with the War on Poverty and the War on