Mr. Hannity: "We would be foolish to assume there is any quick fix, any single solution, to the challenges America will face in the continuing battle with our terrorist foes. But keep in mind that the Cold War was a marathon as well, lasting some fifty years." (p. 276)

Mr. Hannity: "We are at war." (p. 219)

Mr. Hannity: "I'm no opponent of open and honest debate, even over questions of foreign policy...I would never claim that an earnest difference of opinion about foreign policy is unpatriotic....But when it comes to debate during wartime, I think one principle is clear: The only responsible argument is one that's made in good faith. The Democrats have violated that principle." (pp. 214-215)

(NOTE: I apologize for my recent extended delay in publishing this weekly column series. I was on Easter break the 25th and was busy with other matters on the 11th and 18th. I can assure you this lengthy delay was unintentional.)

Mr. Hannity: America's strength does not intimidate other nations. (p. 142)

My response: The United States is the most powerful nation on earth. Since we attained that status in the twentieth century, the rulers of this country have had the capacity to use that strength for good or for evil. In the 1900s we used our military might and economic prowess a number of times to defend weaker countries and assist poorer countries. World War II saved Europe from Nazi aggression, while the Korean and Vietnam Wars attempted to halt Communist advances. Our Marshall Plan helped Europe rebuild its economy after World War II; our Berlin airlift prevented tens of thousands of East Germans from starving to death.

With the shattering of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, a titanic earthquake ripped through the United States and quickly swept across the world. Two shock waves of anger and patriotism predictably met at a point on the globe opposite the United States: the Middle East. Osama bin Laden and his evil cohorts were identified as the enemies, and they were in for a shakedown by the glorious US military. The terrorists of 9/11 declared war on the US, and war is what they got. In this cosmic battle against religiously inspired terrorists, America wages war on the side of good and the terrorists fight on the side of evil. Americans have been wakened from their postmodern, anything-goes slumber to the reality that, like it or not, the United States has a mission to save the world from evil. How much clearer could it get?

(NOTE: The essay below was the first installment of my first article written for publication. Although originally drafted as one long piece in March 2005, this article remains relevant three years later. Both Parts One and Two previously appeared in the Ethical Spectacle (February and March 2006, at www.spectacle.org/0206/sout ar.html and www.spectacle.org/0306/sout ar2.html). The article provides a condensed summary of my beliefs about terrorism and how it should be addressed. Check back later for Part Two.)

Mr. Hannity: "There is no appeasing this enemy." (p. 6)

My response: By its very nature, terrorism is a drastic form of negotiation. It is defined as the threat or use of wanton violence to frighten governments in order to achieve a political goal. Just as a baby kicks and screams in an attempt to force his parents to give him what he wants, terrorists use violence hoping to leverage the US into complying with their demands. However, there are two noteworthy differences between the baby and the grownup terrorist. One is that the terrorists' ultimate objectives are usually just and legitimate. Second, "Islamic" terrorists are prepared to go to great lengths for their cause, even to die for it--precisely because it is just. To summarize, terrorists attempt to achieve a good end through bad means.

Mr. Hannity: "You cannot negotiate with evil...sweet-talk...compromise...give ground to it. You can only defeat it, or it will defeat you." (p. 6)

My response: As a Catholic, I agree wholeheartedly with this principle. In the great cosmic struggle between good and evil in which we are all participants, vigilance and unwavering determination are crucial for those fighting evil. Wishy-washiness in confronting evil allows the devil to take a person over. But Mr. Hannity's book fails to take into account the difference between the unchanging moral law and the application of that law to the political sphere.

Mr. Hannity: "The terrorists themselves, of course, carry on their war against America in covert fashion-but they, at least, are the enemy we know." (p. 5)

My response: One of the outstanding characteristics distinguishing the "War on Terrorism" from true wars such as World War II is the vast difference in our knowledge of the "enemy". In the war against Germany and Japan, we knew exactly who our enemies were, the locations of their armies and bases, and their approximate number. But the "War on Terrorism" is much hazier, due to the fundamental reason that it is not a real war at all.

The G8 Press conference we didn't see...

President Bush walks up to the podium, stumbling only slightly as he climbs the platform stairs. "Good morning ladies and gentlemen," he smirks. "Beautiful day today, so go easy, won'tcha."

The press clamors for attention. President Bush points his finger, "Helen."

"Mr. Bush, "How do you feel about the latest news that global warming is speeding up ocean waves? "

"Sounds like good surfin to me." Bush snickers, press follows.

[Alternate Title: Bush Weakness Empowers North Korea, Iran, and Russia to Action]

International leaders have begun to notice a widening crevice between the Bush Administration's persistent gunboat diplomacy and their realistic ability to follow through.

They see that President Bush has wedged the U.S. Military -- and thus U.S. national security -- between Iraq and a hard place.

As long as we're strapped to Iraq, they know that Bush's actions have impaled both the quality and quantity of America's diplomatic and military options.

And now they're taking advantage of that weakness.

Eliminating U.S. Options

When the Bush Administration first invaded Iraq, they believed the incursion would largely fit the template for which our current military was designed -- based on the belief that extended combat operations were an anachronism. More precisely they expected:

[[This is "Part II". Be sure to read "Part I" first and please consolidate any comments in Part I as well. Thanks.]]

We continue with Step 63...

Step 63) - 08/30/2003

North Korea announces that the Beijing talks convinced it of the need for nuclear weapons.

"North Korea angrily dismissed last week's six-nation talks in Beijing, saying it was now even more convinced of the need to strengthen its nuclear arsenal... The gathering was 'not only useless but harmful in every aspect,' a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said... 'We are now more convinced than before that we have no other alternatives but to continue strengthening our nuclear deterrence as a self-defensive measure to protect our sovereignty'... North Korea repeated during the talks its long-standing demand for a non-aggression pact with the United States, which it accuses of wanting to invade. It also demanded the normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington before it would abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Much more over the bump...

(Warning: This post is long. Damn long! That's because there are heaps of evidence that show Bush, not Clinton, is reponsible for the nuclear debacle we face today with North Korea. Pace yourself, but please be sure to take in every word. The truth is always worth it.)

"Why should I care about North Korea?"

 -- President George W. Bush

Blame Clinton?

Yeah right!

Clearly, the Bush Administration is, by far, the causal factor in Kim Jong Il's entry into Earth's 'Nukular' Club. They can blame Clinton all they want. At least he did something about this rising calamity. In 1994, the Clinton Administration reached an agreement with the DPRK that successfully froze North Korea's nuclear production for the next eight years.

Bush, on the other hand has offered NOTHING except provocation and motivation for the DPRK to invest in nuclear weapons. Although many factors led to this devastating milestone, the buck unambiguously stops with the Bush administration.

To begin, after Secretary of State Colin Powell said the administration will "pick up where President Clinton left off," Bush took less than 24 hours to declare that the Bush Administration negotiations will take a different tone.

Enter the Axis of Evil!  -- a clever 'new direction' to effective diplomacy, no doubt.

That moniker has served as a powerful icon for the times -- but not quite the way Bush and Co. had planned. Instead, it has come to represent this administration's bold contempt for meaningful diplomacy and staunch dedication to asserting military force in a world that can narry afford the elevated state of militaristic provocation.

Remember the last time North Korea was dominating the headlines?

It was December of 2005. The DPRK was decrying as a 'Declarations of war' the latest comments of the US ambassador to South Korea, labeling him the 'worst ambassador in history'.

Not surprisingly, that wasn't the first time Pyongyang had accused the US of implicit declarations of war. But to understand the motivation for such extreme actions, the full saga must unfold before us.

Enter Kim Jong Il and George W. Bush... diplomacy departs... chaos ensues.

"...The danger of war is snowballing, owing to the extreme US moves to isolate and stifle the [North Korean Government], and threats of pre-emptive strikes"

So where do we stand right now and how did we come to this unfortunate place in history?

In response to Booman's thoughts on Iraq earlier today, I suggested that Bush's failure in Iraq presents a critical challenge for Democrats in advance of 2008.

We must develop a comprehensive strategy for how to deal with Iraq and the Middle East over the next 10-15 years and beyond, or else the Bush debacle will become a watershed moment in American history as opposed to an unfortunate footnote. We have ONE CHANCE to reverse the course he has set us on, otherwise an entire generation of Americans, if not several generations, will be doomed by the consequences of "staying the course."

I've sketched out a three-phased, comprehensive alternative to the Bush "strategy" below. It covers withdrawal of US troops, political solutions to the current civil war, an economic development agenda, a long-term plan to promote regional cooperation and stability, and even a corollary on the Arab-Israeli conflict. A few items have been suggested by others, but much of it is unique and has not been proposed before.

Most importantly, I think it's important to note that this is NOT a strategy for "winning the war." The war is lost. This strategy is for how Democrats can manage the fall-out from our loss, starting in 2008. I think adopting a strategy for manaing our loss will be absolutely critical for any Democrat looking to win the Presidency.  

Yesterday on CBS's Face the Nation, Murtha said "The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran, al Qaeda, and China"

That comment might sound like "people who don't like us want us to hurt ourselves" or "people we want to hurt are happy we are distracted".... But there is much more to that comment.

Let me introduce you to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization

When you visit the site, take a moment to really look at the splash page before you click on the "english" button.  Take a look at the map of the world in the background.  Now compare that to their logo.  Notice how much landmass is covered in their logo?  I make the point because Americans generally learn geography based on who we are bombing.  This time it would be wise to learn it up front...