This very strange Charles Krauthammer column ran in today's Times-Dispatch. Krauthammer naturally has problems with the Obama administration's intent to close the Gitmo prison and try the underpants bomber in a civilian court, but his bigger beef with the administration seems to be that they aren't freaking out more. If you aren't speaking loudly, you must not be carrying a big stick.

I'm not a big fan of bureaucrateze, but re-naming terrorism a "man-made disaster" seems a lot less troublesome than the collective conspiracy of the media and the Bush administration to christen torture "enhanced interrogation techniques." Using language to minimize one's own perfidy is a far more egregious sin than using it to minimize your enemy's.

I'm not even that sure that Obama has minimized anything by not cutting short his vacation, John McCain style, and addressing a joint session of Congress on the dangers of exploding jihadist underwear. This Krauthammer mockery:

More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

is clever, but it completely misses the point. 100 or so guys living in caves simply don't pose the threat Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany posed to the United States. Just look at the body count. We suffered a 9/11 a day between 1941 and 1945.

Terrorism is a threat, but it is not an existential threat, and will be best dealt with some combination of military force, law enforcement and diplomacy. The last two factors are most important. We cannot invade and occupy every failed state in the world, much less our allies or ourselves where the terrorists also live. The existential threat is the terrorists getting a hold of a nuke, but as we've seen in Iraq, military force as a non-proliferation strategy is problematic.

Following the money, foiling plots before they hatch and enacting verifiable nuclear disarmament is a lot less sexy than throwing a hissy fit on cable news, or sending troops into battle, but that's what it will take to deal with this situation. And the daily grind of good governance calls for sober tones, not fire and brimstone. That will never satisfy people like Krauthammer and his allies, who seem to have a pathological need to hate an enemy, but I for one am glad that the administration isn't trying to re-ignite the smoldering embers of the World Trade Center with overheated rhetoric.

Some reactions to Obama's speech:

1. At the beginning of the speech, as he summed up how we got into this jam and the nature of it, he looked alternately angry and disgusted. There's nothing like having to clean up someone else's pile of poo, but then again, he asked for this job, and he got what he asked for.
2. I thought that his attempt to put the best face on a possibly stolen election in Afghanistan fell flat. And doesn't that call into serious question this counter-insurgency strategy? Doesn't a successful counter-insurgency depend on the government that you're trying to prop up having legitimacy in the eyes of its people?
3. I was very glad to hear him set a deadline. A high school graduate who enlisted in the Army this summer was ten years old when this war started. Our fifth graders on 9/11 are now fighting in Afghanistan. Enough is enough.
4. I was also very glad to hear him say in effect, "We can't afford this war." Because we can't. A trillion dollars in "supplemental appropriations" for two wars is why we are broke. It's not the stimulus, and its not even the bank bailouts. For people wringing their hands about all the debt we're running up this year, the takeaway lesson is, Don't borrow money in good times to fight a war of choice, not of necessity, because when the bad times return, they'll bite you in the butt.
5. I was most pleased to hear the President commit to moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. A Jack Bauer guided fantasy on torturing a terrorist who knows where the suitcase containing the loose nuke is great, but you know what would be even greater? Living "under your own vines and fig frees, unafraid" and untroubled by certain apocalyptic anxieties because nuclear weapons no longer exist. And what we've learned in this decade is that preventive war is a lousy way to work toward a nuclear free world. The more mundane work of negotiating treaties, verifying them, and vigorous law enforcement is what will get the job done.
6. As I said in the previous post,I don't think any President would have enough political capital to walk away from a war in which the enemy is ascendant. And because the enemy is on the march, the status quo is unacceptable. One last effort to pacify the country before we get out is thus our only viable option. It seems to have worked in Iraq, much better than I thought it would in late 2006. 
7. But given the corruption in #2, and the failure of the Iraqis thus far to take advantage of the improved security and forge a political reconciliation, doesn't this mean that both surges are more about finding a face-saving way to get out than victory?
8. It was sobering to see an audience full of pimply guys in gray cadet uniforms. Some of them will surely be killed before they live long enough to clear up their acne.That's not right.
9. If it's not right then why aren't you more vigorously opposed to this escalation, Marvin? I suppose the answer is, I think that some mixture of sin, history and even Providence have brought us to this ugly point of no good alternatives and no real alternatives at all other than the path outlined last night, and "opposing" the policy makes as much sense as opposing the tide coming in. I think a better question is, Are we learning anything from this slow motion disaster?
10. In Advent we dare to hope for peace on earth and good will toward men, but we also hear John the Baptist's contempt for pious hopes that aren't backed by repentance. Beating swords into plowshares isn't a mandate only for the bad guys.