I'd venture that these concepts include things like odd numbers, primary colors, and basic geometric shapes, but in the interest of fairness, I'll stick to the evidence at hand.
Like in this WaPo editorial, where Dionne misunderstands simple military strategy:
"We're fighting the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the world so we do not have to face them here at home."
That's what President Bush said in his speech yesterday at the FBI Academy in Quantico. After the attacks on Britain, our closest ally in the war on terrorism, it is an astonishing thing to say. "It's a very insensitive statement with regard to the British," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). "Tony Blair must absolutely have blanched when he heard that."
What does Bush's statement mean? Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Fran Townsend, the president's homeland security adviser, said that the war in Iraq attracts terrorists "where we have a fighting military and a coalition that can take them on and not have the sort of civilian casualties that you saw in London."
Huh? If British troops fighting in Iraq did not stop the terrorists from striking London, then what is the logic for believing that American troops fighting in Iraq will stop terrorists from striking our country again? Intelligence reports -- and Townsend's own words -- suggest that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground since the American invasion. How, exactly, has that made us safer?
Dionne confuses the meaning of the words "safe" and "safer."
"Safe" means safe from any and all terror attacks at home. No one-- not President Bush, not Prime Minister Blair, not Senator "Worried about Tony Blair's feelings" Levin, and not E.J. "I like pizza!" Dionne-- could reasonably expect that we are now or ever can be completely "safe" from terrorism. The bomber always gets through.
"Safer," however, is a valuable improvement. Removing the knives while leaving the spoons in your child's crib would make them safer, but not necessarily safe. Yet, who would argue that the incremental benefit is still a major one?
The ultimate question, of course, is how many terrorist attacks would America and Great Britain have suffered had we not drawn the jihadis to our guns in Iraq and Afghanistan? Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove a negative, so we may never know how well the "flypaper" strategy has worked, if it's worked at all.
Still, given the determination and skill of our enemies, not to mention their incredible motivation since 9/11 to strike in both America and the British Isles, it must be a success of some size that we have remained as free from attack as we have. Either our enemy is wounded-- meaning we're succeeding-- or he is incompetent, making one wonder why Dionne is so worried about homeland security.
Of course, there is the third possibility-- our enemy is quiet, and preparing to strike hard at America, far harder than the attacks in London. If that's the case and we are attacked, then I guess E.J. Dionne will have been proven right, or at least claim that he has been.
I would look forward to Dionne's recommendation in the event of an attack, which would then logically have to require that we *not* fight terrorists overseas because that would, of course, lead to more attacks at home. Instead, we should wait for them to attack here at home. Then, we can go prosecute them, or better yet, ignore them completely.
THAT'S Dionne's choice: make craters abroad, or fill them in here at home.
Ideal situation, that.
---
This posting was made on my personal computer.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.