George Will: Republicans need more than rhetoric on defense
Wow.. surprised this comes from George Will.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-need-more-than-rhetoric-on-defense/2012/02/07/gIQA5SF1zQ_print.html
Through 11 presidential elections, beginning with the Democrats nomination of George McGovern in 1972, Republicans have enjoyed a presumption of superiority regarding national security. This year, however, events and their rhetoric are dissipating their advantage.
Hours not months, not weeks, hours after the last U.S. troops left Iraq, vicious political factionalism and sectarian violence intensified. Many Republicans say Barack Obamas withdrawal accompanied by his administrations foolish praise of Iraqs stability has jeopardized what has been achieved there. But if it cannot survive a sunrise without fraying, how much of an achievement was it?
Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor; hence Americans, with much valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely.
Mitt Romney opposes negotiations with the Taliban while they are killing our soldiers. Which means: No negotiations until the war ends, when there will be nothing about which to negotiate. We dont, he says, negotiate from a position of weakness as we are pulling our troops out. That would mean stopping the drawdown of U.S. forces except Romney would not negotiate even from a position of strength: We should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeat the Taliban. How could that be achieved in a second decade of war? What metrics would establish defeat? Details to come, perhaps.
The whole article is a very good read.