A Spot On Editorial From Boston!

[Annie]

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=74187&format=&page=1

Winning Iraq war made us safer
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Sunday, March 20, 2005

On the anniversary of the Iraq invasion, it would be a pleasant surprise to see a bit of national pride expressed in all that has been accomplished in the Middle East in two short years. But bellyaching comes naturally to some folks so allow us to point out the obvious. The world is safer today than it was on March 20, 2003.

Just don't expect to read that on the editorial pages of the bellyacher-in-chief, The New York Times, which had this to say Friday: ``The invasion of Iraq. . . was a world-changing event. We can see many of the consequences already. The good ones so far exist mainly as hopes and are fewer than the bad ones, some of which are all too concrete.'' Groan, groan, grumble, grumble.

Maybe these folks should spend some time reading their own newspaper to better understand that the Bush doctrine of spreading freedom in the Middle East to keep us safer at home is not just a policy of choice, but a policy of necessity.

One recent front-page Times story detailed an internal federal government analysis of post-9/11 aviation security. Some $12 billion has been spent fortifying aircraft and airports, yet the report concludes commercial aviation remains an appealing target for terrorists, and general aviation (private aircraft) and helicopters are easy pickings for terrorists looking to spread deadly biological agents or commit a 9/11-style hit on a standing target.

Then there was a report in Time magazine that indicates bin Laden front man Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sees the Mexican border as an easy entry point into the United States and suggests the next targets in the homeland will be virtually unsecured - or soft - like movie theaters and schools.

Both of these disturbing tidbits affirm that President Bush [related, bio] was exactly right in concluding that defeating terrorism must begin on the streets of Baghdad and Ramallah, not Boston and Detroit.

And really, what's the alternative? While spending billions on aviation, little progress has been made securing other transit modes. What should the U.S. spend - $24 billion, $50 billion? And how on earth are we to go about securing every school, every theater, every pizza parlor, every shopping mall in every community in every state against suicidal terrorists?

We can't. And to pretend otherwise is irresponsible.

The policy of spreading freedom in the Middle East has been praised as visionary and knocked, in turn, as naive or brazen. We assume, facts aside, it will continue to be. But the reality is that it's none of these. It's simply necessary.