Interesting--one of Barack Obama's most vocal, and liberal, op-ed cheerleaders, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, is rather critical today of the Obama team for perhaps lacking a coherent battle plan for the war on terror:
"A concept that excludes nothing defines nothing. That's why one of the most urgent tasks for President-elect Barack Obama's "Team of Rivals" foreign policy brain trust is coming up with a coherent intellectual framework -- and a winning battle plan -- for the globe-spanning asymmetrical conflict that George W. Bush calls the "war on terror"...In his opening statement[at a news conference yesterday], Obama vowed to continue the fight against "those who kill innocent individuals to advance hateful extremism." Is that his definition of terrorism? Is any one-size-fits-all definition sufficiently flexible to allow U.S. Special Forces to go after Osama bin Laden but also to keep nuclear-armed India out of nuclear-armed Pakistan?"
Everyone's talking about the economy. But the terror attacks in Mumbai show that a coherent anti-terror policy can't wait. And promising to talk with their leaders without preconditions surely, surely won't be enough.
By the way, it's not only writers such as Robinson who are sounding the alarm today concerning terrorism's dangers:
"The United States can expect a terrorist attack using nuclear or more likely biological weapons before 2013, reports a bipartisan commission in a study being briefed Tuesday to Vice President-elect Joe Biden."
