Simple Minds

Hard to understand how one reads the Minneapolis Star-Tribune with any seriousness, although it does provide great fodder for the fellows at Power Line and Fraters. Here's an editorial I ran across today, which I am reprinting in full at great risk (none) to myself:

It was announced last week in Washington by "senior administration and military officials" that no longer is the United States in a "war on terror." Henceforth, the nation will be engaged in a long-term "global struggle against violent extremism." The "war on terror" label, the officials said, overemphasizes the military aspect of the struggle and underemphasizes, according to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the need to use "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution, he said, is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military." Well, blow us over with a feather. Just what the Europeans and a whole lot of others have been saying all along. Of course, until now they've all been treated like cheese-eating, terrorist-coddling surrender monkeys. But it turns out they were right after all. Mea culpa, anyone?

Well blow me down. To put it simply: No, this is wrong. The huge difference, as if the editorial staff at the Strib has been asleep for three years (and that is a distinct possibility), is that a WAR has taken place in the interim. See, Europeans (which is a misnomer, anyway, since it lumps a whole slew of pro-US nations with the cheese-eaters) wanted to employ diplomacy with Saddam still in power. It is disingenuous to pretend that employing diplomacy now is the same thing as having done so with no power restructuring in the Middle East.

Take that!