What would Washington have done if Cornwalis had M-1's and Apaches? Times are different. Washington would support Bush.
Washington's position in the debate--paragraph k, for example--advocates full preparedness. That is not the issue. But you make an interesting suggestion. What if Cornwalis, even in 1781, had been better equipped than al Quaida? Well, that would certainly have been a problem, since our French ally would never yave been able to withstand an attack on its fleet of wooden ships by Apaches. But just what is your point really. Today, the gap between our arms and our third world foes is far greater than any advantage we ever had before. We can systematically deal with al Quaida, without trying to play games with the culture of much of the rest of humanity.
Put another way, you do not fight a plague by selling comic books. And you do not isolate your fanatic enemies by coming across as ridiculously arrogant fanatics, yourselves, to everyone else. Frankly, the most offensive aspect of the President's approach to the future, other than the terrible problems that it is going to create for Americans for a long time to come, is the terrible cruelty that will result if it really succeeds in imposing Democracy in many Thrird World nations. It simply does not work out.