I’m not sure what William Bennett and William Krystal envisage what the unltimate outcome of an all-out war against the terrorists would be. Would all the terrorists be killed, everywhere, and then we could all live happily ever after?
It just seems to me that a purely military solution to this terrorism thing worldwide is not in the cards. There is always a “What next?” after the shooting stops.
It is, and has been for a long time, clear to me that peace in western Europe for almost 60 years, maybe the longest such period we know about, is more a result of the Marshall Plan than it is the result of Germany’s defeat by force in WWII.
So how long do you figure it will take to out-violence all of them?
Before we assume success for the violence method, maybe we should see what the final outcome is in Afganistan-Pakistan. Or do you consider that as being a completed action with victory in our pocket?
Most military actions are not a final solution, but are merely a prelude to everone sitting down and negotiating a deal that will last for a few years.
It takes some people longer to find that out than it does others.
Eh, the conservatives blame the “liberals” (a.k.a. everyone else) for everything, even the messes that conservatives create. Or did you miss the news blip last month where Ari Fleischer blamed the mideast violence on Clinton’s attempts to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?
I’m trying to think of a coherent comment about that article, but I can’t. It’s just plain wrong. It’s wronger than Wrong Jack McWrong, winner of the Wrongest Man in the World competition, seven years running. It’s madder than a bag of sticks.