The Global War on Terror: A Good War?

From Jules Crittenden, Boston Herald City Editor, who "has covered crime, science, foreign affairs and military matters in New England, Israel, India, Pakistan, Kosovo, Kuwait and Iraq:"

Our actual and very real enemy purposefully murdered nearly 3,000 people on one
day, and has repeatedly attacked civilians other free nations, killing hundreds
of people in Europe and Asia, not to mention the thousands of innocents
purposefully murdered in Iraq. This enemy has pursued weapons of mass
destruction, and given the opportunity, will use them to kill as many of us as
possible. They know that militarily, for now, they cannot beat us. But they are
patient. They believe, based on past experience, that with our low tolerance for
blood we will falter, pull out, and abandon our allies. That will provide them
with the opportunity to control nations, to control armies, to control
resources. Maybe then we’ll have something more closely resembling total war
that Bush’s domestic opposition can finally recognize as a good and necessary
war, in which national security must be respected, and excesses in the defense
of freedom will be seen in the context of their time, like the carpet bombing of
cities, the internment of American citizens and the suspension of habeas corpus.
Like the brutalities of the Pacific war and Sherman’s March through Georgia.

But that kind of war - the fabled Good War - belongs to another time. A
simpler time. It is probably something that only exists in the rearview mirror
anyway.

Read the whole thing. It's passionate, blunt, and pointed all at the same time.