I have ignored the War on Terrorism lately. No doubt many other people have as well. Perhaps we are lulled into some complacency by the war's distance from us, the lack of attacks on us at home. This could explain sagging support for the war in Iraq. Attacks continue abroad, however. Europe, even, is starting to awaken to the problem of Islamism and its own hostile Muslim population.
I have recently been reminded of the War that continues, and will continue for some time, by some articles by conservatism's heaviest hitters, Bill Buckley and George Will and by the President's seeming reinvigoration today. Buckley and Will, although never on board completely with the President, have recently been more vocal in their criticims of the administration's direction of the war, here and here. Here and here are their follow-ups containing advice to the President. The President has been failing politically and rhetorically. Hopefully today's joust is a sign of more to come from the White House, more substance and campaigning to the public. It is needed because, as Mark Steyn points out in response to criticims conservative and otherwise, no one is providing an alternative course to the present one except surrender. I agree with conservative critics who say the President is overly idealistic about the prospects of democracy in the Arab world, but we must decide what our more realistic goals are. This likely involves years of fighting, and in the meantime establishing much better world-wide intelligence to stamp out terrorists before much harm is done. Thus, the end goal is not so tangible, but rather a process that makes organized terrorism more difficult and less attractive politically.
For a positive take on the war look here. This article argues that Jihad has failed in Iraq because there is no strategy other than terror. "The lack of a viable political program crippled the insurgency. Mao’s theory of people’s war,which formed the basis of every successful revolutionary movement of the late 20th century, emphasizes a struggle’s political aspect over the military. A successful insurgency cultivates and holds on to popular support, as occurred in Algeria and Vietnam. Similar efforts were conspicuous in Iraq by their absence."
This take underscores the importance of the Media in the US. If we are winning, according to the Media we are not, we must recognize it. The mainstream media is reflexively anti-war and negative, and this has an impact on public opinion. They simply refuse to report, or at least seek out, news that might conflict with their view, which often seems like an agenda. Imagine the media's response should we need to strike in Iran.
The War will continue in Iraq and elsewhere. We must have the will to fight it. Disengagement is not an option, for the war was brought to us despite lefty accusations of war-mongering. This is why it is good that the administration has returned to the theme of the "Long War". Despite cries of about Bush's lies, a short, clean victory was not promised. What the President needs to do is summon again the American people and explain this reality. If he does not sell it to us, we will not--barring another attack at home--have the fortitude to do what is necessary when and if more is required. The President is probably right that the Middle East needs to change politically. He is just overly optimistic about how this will come about. This in turn encourages the public expectations of quick solutions.