In a recent thread, I considered another blogger's suggested evaluation of the war on terror and asked "what would a balanced approach look like?" after determining that the one I had read was incomplete. In an effort to determine what the issues are, proposed that the following categories must be included for consideration in this evaluation. I tihnk that under each of these categories there may be three to five issues which should be detailed but I will do that at a further stage of framing the question. Today I want to propose the weighting of the categories which I have noted:

• Afghanistan - 10%
• Iraq - 15 %
• Other assorted war on terror activities on foreign soil - 15%
• Homeland security - 30%
• Fiscal support - 15%
• Diplomatic support - 5%
• Political support - 10%

Do you agree? By figuring out what the relative weightings are, you can determine what is important to you. For me, the entire point of the USA's war on terror is quite rightly to protect itself, despite the language of bringing peace to the world. What is happening in the Sudan tells us that is not the case. Similarly, I think that having the budget to do the job is more important than having other countries that do not fully agree with you like you nonetheless.

Are there other categories missing? Are these weightings valid? In a few days I will flesh out the main issues under each category with the aim of preparing a valid measuring stick to then assess how the war on terror is going objectively. Do you think that objectivity is even possible?