...suggested that we need not fight them "here" (is it mutually exlcusive to fighting them "there")? Assuming they can actually be found and fought here, that is clearly something that should be done. That said, fighting them "there" also seems both warranted and necessary IMO (your "both fronts"). Fighting them there will absolutely work if it prevents them from ever getting here. I am becoming less and less bothered by "pre-emption" if/when terrorist organization locations become known and the nation(s) harboring/supporting those organizations refuse to take action. I don't care whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, France, Italy, Canada, etc. The bottom line is that these terrorist organizations are a direct threat to the national security of this country. If the US has good intelligence indicating the locations of terrorist organizations, and of any nation's involvement with those organizations, then that nation should have two choices; (1) change its point of view and help eradicate the terrorist threat; or (2) the US (and any allies who want to be included) will do the eradication for that nation and will deem any attempt to stop the military action against the terrorists as a declaration of war against the US. It's time to forget being concerned about "pre-emption" IMO. It isn't pre-empting anything. It is continuing national defense against attacks already undertaken. And, there should be no separation of terrorist groups -- lump them all together. It is the defense of our national security, and it is against all terorists. Do I think what was done militarily in Iraq is the way to go? No. But, to the extent we have the opportunity and ability to specifically target terrorists in other countries when those countries harbor them and refuse to take action, I say go fot it. And, I'm tired of worrying about what others will think of the US defending itself to any extent deemed necessary. If that shocks and angers other countries, so be it. Let them take appropriate action and they won't have any need to be shocked and angered.
* * * * *
::::>I agree that we have to take the fight directly to the terrorists, even though I might disagree that the invasion of Iraq was the best way to wage that fight. However, I don't agree with the concept that we can fight them 'over there' INSTEAD of fighting them here. The terrorists will continue to attack us at 'here' as long as they believe such attacks will further their objectives. Fighting them 'over there' will not stop it. We must prepare for battles on both fronts, rather than fooling the public into thinking the war in Iraq makes us any safer.
