Bush will still be with us after January '09

Unfortunately, that's true.  Andrew Bacevich points out that Bush's policies have convinced many in the US that we're in a permanent war on terror, that preemptive strikes are just fine, that the Pentagon's role is not defense but offense, and that any tightening of the defense budget is unthinkable.   

Bacevich has got it right.  Bush's philosophy --permanent war -- has become the thinking of many Americans. Worse, none of the presidential candidates has yet shown any desire to confront the  major issues.

Throughout the long primary season, even as various contenders in both parties argued endlessly about Iraq, they seemed oblivious to the more fundamental questions raised by the Bush years: whether global war makes sense as an antidote to terror, whether preventive war works, whether the costs of "global leadership" are sustainable, and whether events in Asia rather than the Middle East just might determine the course of the 21st century.

A member of the military and a conservative, Andrew Bacevich was one of the first traditional conservatives to support Barack Obama.  Now he writes:

The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course.

This is a stiff test, not the work of a speech or two, but of an entire campaign. Whether or not Obama passes the test will determine his fitness for the presidency.

Can't argue with that.

Comments

[not completely useless]

"Whether or not Obama passes the test will determine his fitness for the presidency."

Except that we don't really get to choose the fittest person for the job, do we? It's always the fitter person of two. The question isn't whether Obama is "fit" to be presidency, it's whether he'd be better at it than McCain.

Not to mention the fact that Bacevich has very little influence on the reasons that most people vote. Sure, guy, you can use your criteria. But I don't have to.

[PW]

You've got a good point there, Not. This might be of interest.