The way I see it is that if you can't care about someone else's child you're ikely so solipsistic that you aren't truly going to care about your own. The only way we'll see a change in nations' willingness to go to war is when the powers that be are themselves the front line...

That would be something wouldn't it?  But I think you are ascribing too much compassion to politicians, who get to a certain level because of an ability to de-sensitize themselves.  But I do think a love for ones own child is so strong it is often not blinded.  Moreover, for others without a military connection, it is a simple thing to say send in the Marines without thought of the consequences.  The effectiveness, selflessness, and humble pride of our military has made this possible because, to paraphrase Phil Graham, "they are not whinners."

I like the old movies and stories where the kings and generals are right there in front of everybody else.

"Follow me, men!" sounds so much better than any of that other jingoistic claptrap. Give me a Henry V over a George II any day.

"We few. We happy few. We band of brothers." not "Sorry, but you're not done fighting until WE say you're done fighting."

As good a place as any to put this – JibJab: It's Time for Some Campaignin' (to the tune of Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'").

Here's the problem with the arguement, Geoff - Soldiers shouldn't be fighting terrorists or religious zealots.  Soldiers should be fighting wars.

Instead of rebuilding our military to take on this supposed looming thread of Islam, we should put that money into agenecies that are better suited to handle these things - CIA, FBI, etc.  We should establish decent relations with the free world instead.  We should be honest and truthfull - we should do the right thing and set a good example.  Every time we break a rule, we lie, we torture, we slaughter innnocents - we're just digging our hole deeper. 

There are correct ways to protect us and combat this sort of things.  It's the exact opposite way that it's been handled for the last 8 years.

Besides - "Pre 9/11 mentality"?  That's propaganda and fear-mongering.

Here's the problem with the arguement, Geoff - Soldiers shouldn't be fighting terrorists or religious zealots.  Soldiers should be fighting wars.

Instead of rebuilding our military to take on this supposed looming thread of Islam, we should put that money into agenecies that are better suited to handle these things - CIA, FBI, etc.  We should establish decent relations with the free world instead.  We should be honest and truthfull - we should do the right thing and set a good example.  Every time we break a rule, we lie, we torture, we slaughter innnocents - we're just digging our hole deeper. 

There are correct ways to protect us and combat this sort of things.  It's the exact opposite way that it's been handled for the last 8 years.

Besides - "Pre 9/11 mentality"?  That's propaganda and fear-mongering.

Okay my turn!  I agree that a great deal of defense against terrorism is a law enforcement issue and that our relations with the rest of the world needs some repair.  Better relations will help makes more secure.  I support that line of thinking completely.  But the issue is much broader than that because international terrorism is a national securtity issue as well as a law enforcement issue.  Ignoring the military component of the "war on terror" (or to use a less politicized term "american defense from international terrorism") is at best irresponsible and at worst foolishness.  To the extent terrorist organizations are supported or harbored by friendly governments such as the Taliban in Afghanastan, and potentially Iran or other states, we have to have the military strength to protect both American interests and to force terrorist friendly states to re-evaluate their support of terrorist organizations.  Better diplomacy and intelligence alone will not achieve such ends.

Proof of this is in our recent history and is why to his credit Obama's position has evolved over time.  Among the myriad of reason the war in Iraq was wrong* is because there were no ties to Al Queda or 9/11.  But to dismiss the need for military intervention where it is called for is silly to my mind.  Do you think our invasion of Afghanastan was wrong? Because based on your position taken above I would assume you do.  But most Americans, including Senator Obama, endorse the efforts in Afghanastan as an appropriate use of american military strength.

The need to strengthen our military (and by that I mean increase the number of soldiers) is so that we have some degree of leverage.  The reason Iran can ignore us is because we have no leverage -- our military is spread too thin.  Obama understands that, which is why, to his credit he has revisited his position regarding meeting with the Iranian president.  If we have no leverage the meeting is futile.  Why would he agree to shut down his quest for nukes, because Barak's a cool guy?  Among the dollars wasted (and more tragically lives lost) the Iraq War has overextened American Military might and, accordingly, weakened our leverage.

As for fear mongering and propeganda -- the article which raised the question was written by Frank Rich who is probably more liberal than you.  In his article Rich justifiably criticizes the Department of Homeland Security and its efforts to keep us safe.  He is, as you are Mike, critical of the manner in which the present administration has chosen to defend us from terrorism.  But he also ask whether we the people (not out politicians or government) are remaining as vigilent as we should.  To say that Americans are not as focused on terrorism is not to instill fear, it to remind them to be vigilent, and ask our government what they are doing to protect us.  As I hope you know by this point, I am not one to support baseless fear.  I have repeatedly stated that we should not use unjustified fears to explain or excuse our government endorsing torture or the like.  But to not recognize that many americans have ignored the real and continued threat of terrorism, as they are understandably consumed with domestic concerns, is foolish.  Reminding ourselves that we must remain vigilent is neither propoganda nor fear mongering.  Its is being responsible.  

*Has Obama specifically rebuked the idea of pre-emptive war?  I know he has argued against the war and pointed to his opposition to the war but does he oppose the principle of pre-emptive war?

America didn't recognize the government of Afghanistan, the Taliban.  There were  occasions, before and after 9/11, where the Taliban offered up Osama bin Laden to the U.S. - but they wanted recognition, which the U.S. opposed.  I don't think we had much choice but to invade if we wanted to bring Osama to justice.

Of course, Rumsfeld's reaction to 9/11 was that we needed to invade Iraq, like, that day.  Hmm.

No, I was all for Afganistan - that's where OBL was, and the government was supporting him.

I don't think we should stay there - it broke the USSR and it will break us.  It's unwinable.

By soldiers - and that's my point about the current situation - we shouldn't be dealing with it with soldiers.  It's not fair to the soldier - it's throwing away thier lives, meaninglessly, and it's not making us safer - if anything, it's fanning the flames of our hatred. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't fight this, I'm saying we need to do it intellegently.

Can't kill a fly with a car.

Kevin - I think it was the next day.

(*COUGHpnacCOUGH*)

Ah, Rumsfield!  The pride of Princeton.  And Dubya went to Yale (and Harvard).  Wolfowitz went to Cornell.  So the next time you hear Rush Limbaugh crticize the Ivy League . . . he may be right! 

By soldiers - and that's my point about the current situation - we shouldn't be dealing with it with soldiers.  It's not fair to the soldier - it's throwing away thier lives, meaninglessly, and it's not making us safer - if anything, it's fanning the flames of our hatred. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't fight this, I'm saying we need to do it intellegently.

Can't kill a fly with a car.

What's not fair to our soldiers is to get them into unnecessary wars.  That they did not sign up for.  I know you agree we need to fight this.  And I agree a new approach is needed, but part of that approach, one if I'm not mistaken Obama has endorsed.  Is the restrengthening of our military.

I prefer bug zappers the flys taste nice and crispy when they fly into the light!