I agree with the Republicans that this war is not defined in the same terms as you and I are accustomed. Democrats are playing politics when they mock this new reality. Rather then totally eliminate terrorism, or have terrorists sign terms of total surrender in order to be able to claim victory, what is the goal is to have the terrorist organizations no longer able to threaten democracy and organize on a global scale. Precise terms are not applicable in this conflict. Failure in this conflict would result in the end of freedom, and is unacceptable to our way of life. The American ideal of freedom or death is being put to the test.

Bush’s NBC interview was an honest comment that this war is not winnable in the traditional sense. And, we may not always be sure that the west is safe from attack, but by denying them the opportunity to turn the world Islamic and limiting their influence by offering opportunity to the losers in life that take the dead-end path, the West hopes to render their cause irrelevant. Bringing democracy and opportunity to the Middle East is an important part of this struggle. Would I make a good Republican speech-writer?

I have to still figure out the point to know if you have captured any substance well.

Now, more questions - how is the "end of freedom" and western democracy actually threatened from today's point of view rather than the afternoon of 9/11 when we thought dams would be blown up at any time? Is that an actual risk and how would it occur? Does the continuation of today's status quo, with special services units of all democracies basically operating everywhere, include any real risk of the end of freedom and the end of democracy?

I am not rhetorically asking this but if "turning the world Islamic" is the outcome we want to avoid is there anyway now that could possible occur? Isn't the real risk just another terrorist attack like what is happening in Russia? I don't mean just as the airplane blowing up and a school being held hostage is bad but they do not pose a risk to freedom and democracy. The pose a risk to individuals with no risk to free states.

My cynical side tells me the "war on terror" will last as long as they need to ride that pony to scare up more votes.

The "war on terror" seems as unwinnable - and un-endable, and undefinable - as the "war on drugs" or the "war on crime". Both the latter have been co-opted by politicians to persuade voters that their fears can be put to rest by voting for this party or that (without walking into a partisan debate, Republicans seem to play this card more often than the Democrats).

I'm not suggesting the "war on terror" isn't real or ought not be fought (wow - say that three times without giggling!), just that a real danger exists that unscrupulous - or perhaps, to be charitable, "misguided" - politicians can use those three words as license for attack: attack on other sovereign states, attack on religions, and attack on the Constitutional rights of its own citizens.

I don't take seriously any notion that terrorism poses a threat to freedom. History tells us that the more peoples' freedom is threatened, the stronger their commitment to its principles becomes. 9/11/01 was arguably a day when American freedom was most threatened. In the days that followed, an entire nation renewed its commitment to itself and the world.

And I see no danger of the entire world turning Islamic, any more than I see any possibility of the entire world embracing democracy. I'll be keen to see what happens to "democracy" in Iraq, a country with no cultural context for such an odd beast. My prediction: within years (if not months) Iraqis will elect a dictator (or some form of dictatorial theocracy) and will return to an autocratic, repressive system that is more familiar to them.

So if actions taken since 9/11 have assured that democracy is not threatened, that freedom will continue and that Islamic facists will not make their own version of <i>Red Dawn</i> in the mid-west US, has the war not been won? Maybe just the hot war and we are now back into a new cold war.

David Janes has written a good essay on his take on the war on terror here. As I said, I am not interested in challenging the validity of the war so much as taking some steps to frame where it stands.

I agree that turning the world Islamic will not happen, but it is one of the motives driving the Madrasas and hate-preaching Clerics that fuel the hatred for the west. Comments about the unlikely success of an Iraqi democracy mirror those voiced about Germany and Japan in the '40's.

I think they were more in line with comments about South Korea in the mid-50's. Until it plays out we will not know. Your comment reminds me of John Kenneth Galbraith being asked on US TV on an election night at 7 pm who he thought would win. He said ask me at midnight.

Isn’t the “war on terror” just a euphemism for the “Bush Doctrine”, used because it “plays” better with the American public? And as a “doctrine”, as long as its true believers are in power, doesn’t the doctrine or “war”, in this case, remain ongoing? And if acceptance of this doctrine becomes the sine qua non of the path to power by both the Republicans and the Democrats, won't this “war” remain as a continuing part of the American “experience”?

***** - your best most lucid post ever.

Thanks, Al - it must be the change in my medication.

In W's speech last night, he did quote some columnists who had portrayed the situation in Germany and Japan as a lost cause during the '40's, that the whole Plan was doomed to failure. I did not get the details of the columnist’s names, but he did say they probably did not last long in their professions. (I hope you did not miss the speech)

I heard much of it but am little impressed by a politician who cites a 60 year old error of political forecasting in an other part of the world as a justification to scoff at dissent against his plan of war. If Iraq does turn bad of its own devices, will he likewise fall on his sword or find another 60 year old situation in another part of the world to analogize upon. Hey, I should try it at home. I am sure the family would buy that as a justifcation of anything if the USA can.

Won't work here, either...:(

Actually, Dubya in his speech wondered aloud whether that columnist was still working - at the New York Times ( kinda funny and funnier than Kerry's quip about being "born in the 'west wing' of the hospital" - ah yes, Kerry believes he was "born" to be in the White House - sorry Al, I think I'm due for another pill)

Regardless, it all seems to be working for Bush, given that Bush had essentially regained the lead in the polls before the convention (see: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-08-26-usat-poll_x.htm ), and given now the " bounce" from the convention, which Time Magazine says gives Bush-Cheney an ELEVEN point lead even before Bush's speech(which is unlike the "dead cat bounce" Kerry recieved from the Dem Con - see: http://www.tribnet.com/24hour/politics/story/1622552p-9310474c.html.

Can there any doubt that the Kerry-Edwards ticket is now, and will continue, sinking like a rock?

Sure there is doubt. Not that either side deserves anything but this is the race that you and I have never seen in our lives as both sides are desperate to win.

Besides remember - it ain't the popular vote its the electoral college vote and itsl all about Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Everyone else might as well go home now.

Not both, but 3 sides are desperate..."10 out of 10 Terrorists agree...anybody but Bush!"