Outstanding Opinion: The Good War

The Boston Herald carries an outstanding Editorial that clearly reminds readers that we are in a war. A war that may last for some time:

"Five years on, some people remain unaware that this is war; that we are facing an enemy that will do anything in its power to destroy us."

The column goes on to discuss some reasons why some Americans have forgotten this:

"George Bush, while announcing that we were at war five years ago, made a decision to encourage Americans to go about their business as usual. Rather than mobilizing the country for war, he decided he could fight this unconventional war by unconventional means, and with the forces already at hand. Normalcy had its uses as a weapon. It showed that our enemy could not hobble us."

While admirable, the success of this approach, and the "normalcy" we enjoy, has made it appear that the world is "normal":

"Ironically, Bush has been so effective with his approach, that there has not been an attack on the mainland United States since 9-11. That has allowed his opposition to maintain that all the unpleasant things Bush has had to do domestically and abroad are unnecessary, or the very least excessive. They’ve had the freedom to nitpick at the execution of the war, expressing indignation at every misstep, while ignoring major accomplishments, which they see after all as the accomplishments of an unnecessary war based on global intelligence failures that, in hindsight, they cast as lies."

But the column quickly brings us back to reality. A reality we must be willing to face, or we may face it with another devastating blow:

"Our actual and very real enemy purposefully murdered nearly 3,000 people on one day, and has repeatedly attacked civilians other free nations, killing hundreds of people in Europe and Asia, not to mention the thousands of innocents purposefully murdered in Iraq. This enemy has pursued weapons of mass destruction, and given the opportunity, will use them to kill as many of us as possible. They know that militarily, for now, they cannot beat us. But they are patient. They believe, based on past experience, that with our low tolerance for blood we will falter, pull out, and abandon our allies. That will provide them with the opportunity to control nations, to control armies, to control resources. Maybe then we’ll have something more closely resembling total war that Bush’s domestic opposition can finally recognize as a good and necessary war, in which national security must be respected, and excesses in the defense of freedom will be seen in the context of their time, like the carpet bombing of cities, the internment of American citizens and the suspension of habeas corpus. Like the brutalities of the Pacific war and Sherman’s March through Georgia.

But that kind of war - the fabled Good War - belongs to another time. A simpler time. It is probably something that only exists in the rearview mirror anyway."

Finally, the closing faces another reality and bluntly tells it like it is:

"There are some people who will never get that. Their actions show that they are not worthy of the freedoms that American soldiers have died to give them. Those freedoms are theirs anyway, the birthright of even the most despicable self-centered coward who is born American. But there comes a point when you have to ask, which side are they on? There comes a point when even professional capriciousness and misguided idealism - to be charitable - have to be labeled for what they are: Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Treason."