Here's a question:
What accounts for the strange, persistent cognitive dissonance about this president and his relation to military force?
The question comes towards the end of a longish column in the New York Times, and the person asking it is Peter L. Bergen. He details Obama's record in this regard. Amongst other things:
Soon after Mr. Obama took office he reframed the fight against terrorism. Liberals wanted to cast anti-terrorism efforts in terms of global law enforcement - rather than war. The president didn't choose this path and instead declared "war against Al Qaeda and its allies." In switching rhetorical gears, Mr. Obama abandoned Mr. Bush's vague and open-ended fight against terrorism in favor of a war with particular, violent jihadists.
And there's a lot more. I do rather feel this vindicates a longtime thesis aired and referenced repeatedly on normblog: the thesis, namely, of the war formerly known as the war on terror.
