One of the most telling signs of the political naiveté of lib-
erals and the Left in the United States has been their
steadfast faith in much of the worldview that blan-
kets the imperial state they call home. Nowhere has
this critical failure been more evident than in their
acceptance of the premise that there really is some-
thing called a “war on terror” or “terrorism”[1] – how-
ever poorly managed its critics make it out to be – and
that righting the course of this war ought to be this country’s
top foreign policy priority. In this perspective, Afghanistan and
Pakistan rather than Iraq ought to have been the war on terror’s proper foci; most
accept that the U.S. attack on Afghanistan from October 2001 on was a legitimate
and necessary stage in the war. The tragic error of the Bush Administration, in this
view, was that it lost sight of this priority, and diverted U.S. military action to Iraq
and other theaters, reducing the commitment where it was needed.
One of the most telling signs of the political naiveté of lib-
erals and the Left in the United States has been their
steadfast faith in much of the worldview that blan-
kets the imperial state they call home. Nowhere has
this critical failure been more evident than in their
acceptance of the premise that there really is some-
thing called a “war on terror” or “terrorism”[1] – how-
ever poorly managed its critics make it out to be – and
that righting the course of this war ought to be this country’s
top foreign policy priority. In this perspective, Afghanistan and
Pakistan rather than Iraq ought to have been the war on terror’s proper foci; most
accept that the U.S. attack on Afghanistan from October 2001 on was a legitimate
and necessary stage in the war. The tragic error of the Bush Administration, in this
view, was that it lost sight of this priority, and diverted U.S. military action to Iraq
and other theaters, reducing the commitment where it was needed.