Meanwhile over on the Wall Street Journal editorial page (subscription is required) David Rivkin and Lee Casey observe that the key policy difference between Democrats and Republicans on the war on terror is whether or not to treat as a law enforcement issue or as war.
The national "dialogue" over how the U.S. should respond to the threat of radical Islam is replete with claims and counterclaims about whether the Bush administration has violated the law by holding captured jihadist prisoners without trial, by intercepting al Qaeda communications without judicial warrants, by subjecting detainees to stressful interrogations, and so forth. In fact, almost all of this clamor arises from a basic dispute over whether the U.S. is -- or should be considered -- at war with al Qaeda and its allies, or whether it should address the threat of transnational terrorism as a law-enforcement matter -- as most of its European allies have done.
Democrats insist that the war on terror is a law enforcement issue, despite two elections, 2002 and 2004, that say otherwise. Fortunately, the majority of Americans voted for the party that has chosen to wage war on al Qaeda. As we approach the 2006 midterm election, I think it's not a coincidence that violence in Iraq has ramped up again. Is there anyone who wonders why?
Comments