Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not sure if you read the long paper Bilmore posted 6 or 8 weeks ago, but this is exactly the distinction that Bush is intentionally making. This isn't your daddy's cold war, and its not grandpa's WWII. Bush can't hold his DoD subordinates accountable to save his life, but he does have that vision thing down. If he could do both, we'd be better off. But Kerry is a no-show on the vision thing, and, at best, a "maybe" on leaving tactical decisions up to the Generals.
|
First, Bush has the wrong vision to fight a war against Al Qaeda. He places too much emphasis on state sponsors of terror, and too little on the many ways in which movements like Al Qaeda can operate free of state sponsors, e.g. in failed states. This focus led him to Iraq, which is more of a problem for us in the war on terror now than it was before. (Not so if we can stabilize it and turn it into a beacon for the region -- I'm not holding my breath.) At the same time, we're not doing much of anything to address the greivances that animate Al Qaeda.
Second, in so casually dismissing Kerry, you're just not being serious. He's surrounded by people like Holbrooke, Biden and Berger (before the sock debacle) who worry about this war and have views about what to do. None of these people think they're fighting the Cold War. And I don't even understand your barb about leaving tactical decisions to the generals. WTF?
