I am glad we have passion on our side, but I don't agree with Aussiegirl's cri de coeur.

We are winning.  It is very important not to mistake that for losing, although in the middle of the fight it can be difficult to tell.  Yes, there certainly are backsliders, and we have to hope that the Europeans can find it in themselves to stand up for their own civilization.  But Bush is managing our enemies very well. 

The lesson in war is that you cannot do everything at the same time.  You have to pick your spots.  For now, our troops are tied down in Iraq.  We are making progress there.  The outlines of final victory are not clear.  Very likely, this is a 100 Years' War in the Middle East.  This engagement will be victorious when the Iraqis can run it themselves and there is every indication that is happening.  If it does happen, then we will be able to disengage and at the same time have created an ally in the war.  Advantage U.S.

The intelligence that Iran is years away from a nuke seems to be proving out.  Yes, they are laying the infrastructure for it, but apparently they do not yet have that infrastructure.  Of course the Chinese and Russians are making as much mischief as they can.  But we retain our ultimate deterrent, a full—scale conventional strike should they actually appear to be putting a nuke on a missle.  The strategy in Iran is to go for domestic change.  Perhaps that can be achieved, perhaps not.  But the repellent regime in Iran is widely hated, so we do have a vector to pursue there.

Kim Jong Il is a joke.  We certainly have the power to take out any new missile that is fueled on the ground.  Liquid fuel missiles take a lot of time — measured in a minimum of days and perhaps weeks — to be set up and fueled.  North Korea is not getting any more of an edge than they got when we did not stop their nuclear program in the 1990's.

Doug Hanson at AT has opined, and I agree with him, that to some extent, the current situation was very likely Israel's strategic concept all along.  Certainly, if backing out of Gaza had resulted in a move forward for the Palestinians, they were not opposed to it, but to imagine that remilitarization of Gaza never occurred to an old warhorse like Ariel Sharon is simply foolish.  What Israel did was to extricate their settlers from a no—win situation. 

Israel was not going to win the demographic battle in Gaza and having settlements there gave hostages to fate.  Now they have a free hand to make a military settlement on that front, very likely with some sort of buffer zone between the Gaza population and Israel proper.  There are no easy answers in the Israel situation, which is not Bush's fault.  We simply have to roll with the punches there as Israel establishes permanent borders and disengagement from the Palestinian population, which is the only current solution.

I cannot understand where Bush is coming from on immigration, but the House is clearly going to go for security first.  We will win that one as well, even without Bush.

Yes, Bush is going thought a lot of multilateral blather.  That is kabuki. He is demonstrating its uselessness by engaging in it.  Bush is the only leader with the heart, vision and stamina to go the distance.  Our job is to help him hold the line.  No faint hearts now.

Greg Richards   7 9 06