Tom Friedman is one of the more readable Times columnists, but amusingly he is also reliably wrong on analysis. His column this morning is no exception. If I read him correctly, Tom is trying to sell the idea that we are more at risk now because we've been so successful in the war on terror. Friedman goes on to explain his ideas by proposing that the enemy actually invited the fight on their land, and now having lost will create some grand "hail Allah" plan for a spectacular attack on our mainland.
This is ridiculous. First, it is wrong in the extreme to suggest that the terror masters initiated 9/11 with the idea of inviting a fight with us. The truth is, we were attacked because we failed to respond to previous small scale attacks and thereby emboldened our enemy. Secondly, the enemy expected that the attack's audaciousness alone would serve as a humiliating defeat for the U.S. and serve as a strong recruiting vehicle for more jihadi's. Instead, this was just another case of the time honored practice of amateurs over playing their hand, and getting clobbered as a result.
Friedman's spin, it's not credible enough to call it an argument, is another attempt to introduce the argument that going to Iraq took our eye off what we really should be doing to secure the country. Nice try Tommy.
Bush understood from the outset that the best defense is a great offense. As a result of this strategery, we are not now more at risk due to some hail Mary plan, we are instead safer than at any point since 9/11. That said, there is still a daily threat of attack. It is greatly reduced, however, because even nutjob jihadi's won't be as willing to blow themselves up for the Washington Generals of the bad guy world.
Via: Vodkapundit who also has an amazing tale of the sad, sad, attempts of John Kerry to discredit his former opponent.