There wasn’t as much in last night’s debate about terrorism as I would have thought. Down in Mississippi and writing for the Oxford Eagle, Jacob Kathman asks some hard questions that the candidates themselves would have done well to answer: “Determining which plan is better is the responsibility each individual voter. But two points are clear. First, prior to the invasion, Iraq did not support al Qaeda, nor was it a haven for terrorist organizations. In fact, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein considered one another as threats. Since the invasion, Iraq has become a magnet for terror organizations. Second, the U.S. cannot continue to sustain its effort in Iraq into the indefinite future. The Congressional Budget Office has projected a cost of approximately $2 trillion, and the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers have been lost in Iraq alone.

This is a heavy burden. Yet, as long as our enemies are comparatively weak, the potential for terrorist attacks on the U.S. will always exist. The Bush administration’s ambition to “rid the world of evil” is not a reasonable objective. Both candidates recognize this. Instead, while watching the debate, voters would be well-served to listen for proposals that reduce the burden on the U.S. and simultaneously reduce our exposure to extremist violence. Overstated rhetoric will not get us very far. Thoughtful policy will.”

Planning Mode