Vector, victor, yeah
I hold this truth to be self-evident:
Bush's "war on terror" is an incomprehensible exercise in increasing the likelihood that high radicalized, highly motivated terrorists will again strike on American soil. A serious war on terror would begin from a recognition of the nature of the threat, with a considered response that's both flexible and comprehensive. Bush's Iraq war is none of these.
(This clean wording, however, wasn't as self-evident to my self; David crafted it.)
I expect that history will record much of what we've done so far under "What Not To Do To Fight Terrorism." I predict the perception will be almost unanimous within 20 years, "How could we have been so foolish?"
Will a succeeding Kerry Administration effect a considered, flexible, and comprehensive response that defuses rather than inflames terrorism? I'm convinced it's possible, maybe even likely, though not certain. I see no chance for a turnaround under Bush: Seeing the world in black and white means being blind to the complexities of people and therefore, to the root causes of terrorism. Being unable to remember or admit mistakes means no chance of ever correcting them.
And -- this is my theological opinion as a Christian -- swimming in hubris means being cut off from the Spirit of Life, the source of any lasting solution.
A terror-free world -- it's a destination I believe we can get to, despite present appearances. But only by turning, not by accelerating in the wrong direction.
