August 17, 2006
Let's say Iraq IS part of the war on terror
“The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”
[T]he new assessments provide evidence that violence in Iraq is at its highest level yet. And they describe twin dangers facing the country: insurgent violence against Americans and Iraqi security forces, which has continued to increase since the killing of Mr. Zarqawi, and the primarily sectarian violence being aimed at civilians.
Some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq’s democratically elected government might not survive. "Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy," said one military affairs expert.
Oh. You know, I'd sure feel safer from the terrorists if those lazy journalists would go report some good news. And it sure does befog the mind to ponder what sorts of "alternatives to democracy" they might be considering.
But at least it sounds like the UK terror plot was hyped up and its announcement carefully timed by Bush and Blair for short-term political gain. Turns out those "terrorists" didn't have bombs, plane tickets, or passports, so they were nowhere close to even taking a "dry run." And those liquid explosives? They sound about as easy to make on a plane as, I don't know, Beef Wellington.
Isn't that a relief? Even if we're losing the war on terror in Iraq, we're merely not-winning it here at home. It would be nice if we could trust our governments to only scare and inconvenience us when there's actually something scary and inconvenient happening, but hey: Freedom isn't free.
TrackBack URL for this entry: