[Huck]

The War on Terror is . . . is occasionally military, and it will be . . . for a long time. . . . But it's primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Let me ask you this: In terms of Al Queda--they are the primary terror threat, no?--how is what Kerry said wrong? Isn't the hunt for Al Queda a combination of military, intelligence, and law-enforcement? Isn't that what homeland security is? And don't we need the cooperation of countries like Pakistan, or Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia?

[petercooper]

We're not taking them to trial. We're killing them. What don't you understand about that?

[hedgie]

There's nothing wrong with it on the surface. And you are absolutely correct that the war on terror has law enforcement aspects and requires the assistance of other countries.

The issue, to me, is in the level of commitment and the willingness to treat the war on terror as a war. Meaning continued aggressive military action until the threat is 100% nullified.

Not "occasionally" but "continuously." Will Kerry be proactive on this, or will he need to be dragged into it?

My feeling is that it is going to be more of what we have seen in the past from him. Namely that he has built a career on being a war hero who is fundamentally anti-war.

There is nothing wrong with this and many fine Americans have fit this description.

But it is not what we need now.