How not to prosecute GWOT (the Global War On Terrorism)


Over at the American Spectator Jed Babbin reinforces opinion expressed here at American Thinker. This is a good example of an instance in which having one's thoughts affirmed confers no satisfaction whatsoever.

Today is Day 1 of the President's 5—day campaign to counter growing public opposition to the war in Iraq. Public confidence in Mr. Bush's conduct of the war has sunk so low, he needs to undertake more than a five—day campaign with a built—in withdrawal date. Just as this war will outlast his presidency, so must the momentum toward victory he creates by his leadership. In this, the President is failing. Regardless of the political consequences, he must reassert the leadership he has shown before. . .

. . . Back in June, I asked another senior DoD official a question that obviously discomfited him. It was simple enough. I began with the fact that we have mensurated (i.e., three dimensional, accurate within a yard or two) targeting coordinates for the terrorist sanctuaries in Syria. (The fact that Syria is a sanctuary for terrorists who kill Americans in Iraq has not been disputable for more than a year.) I asked why, then, weren't we attacking the sanctuaries? He gave an answer that —— from the look on his face —— made him even more uncomfortable than the question. He said, "There are nations with which we don't want to go to war now." And therein lies the rub. President Bush must not write the plans for the GWOT on a palimpsest of Vietnam.

Whatever the effect may be on the 2006 and 2008 elections, the war must be prosecuted with all the speed and force we can muster —— and that is more than we now use —— toward victory. . .

Yes, it's well past the time we all got with the program — and Mr. Babbin seems to think that also includes the President.

Dennis Sevakis    8 22 05