Proactive War vs. Reactive War?
That’s the question that should be uppermost in Americans’ minds when they consider who to vote for this fall. I’ve already decided on proactive. This Sunday morning headline provides more proof:
Slain al-Qaida Leader Vowed to Attack U.S
How often have President Bush’s critics rolled their eyes when he’d say that it’s better to fight the terrorists over there than it is to confront them here? I’d be rich if I had a dollar for all those times. Instead of agreeing with the President and leaving it at that, they’d agree, then throw in the ‘But we aren’t putting enough first responders in place’ or something to that effect.
Implicit in that rejoinder is the fact that Democrats simply accept as fact that we’ll have another attack. While they’re likely to eventually be right, the truth is that President Bush is doing everything he can to prevent that day from coming.
Slain al-Qaida Leader Vowed to Attack U.S
That headline should scare you. Highlighting that headline will likely cause Democrats to accuse you of scaremongering. Whatever. A healthy risk assessment is proper in determining policy. Should we continue our fighting the enemy while he isn’t on American soil? How much effort should we put into fighting terrorists overseas? As opposed to simply waiting for the next attack, then cleaning up afterwards?
The truth is that the global jihadists still want to hit us. The truth is that President Bush’s policy, accompanied by the military’s strikes and the intelligence agencies’ cooperation with allies’ intel agencies are winning the day.
The thought that we’d vote in politicians that aren’t committed to throwing everything we’ve got at the terrorists isn’t just insane. It’s avoidable, too.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing