It is my optomistic hope that you're right, that we haven't gone soft. The early post-9/11 days offer hope. So does continued public support for the troops (if not their mission).
The current trend towards "let's pretend it never happened", on the other hand, does not bode well. The real question is whether the Public At Large will prefer Wal-Mart and SUVs to continued American political, military, and economic primacy in the world at large. In thirty years will we have backed ourselves into a fat, dumb, and happy corner?
I hope not, I think we're made of sterner stuff than that, and our reaction to the next major terrorist attack (whenever that may be) will be a good basis for extrapolation.

Posted by: TrustButVerify at January 30, 2006 12:40 PM

I was pretty sure that we were still ready to make those kinds of sacrifices, once our back was to the wall. But we haven't gone that far down the road, thus the perception that we are losing our will to win.

For the most part he's right in most of our tech is configured for the wrong war-the 4GW guys have been saying that for a while though.

Posted by: Charles at January 30, 2006 9:50 AM

You can say what you like, Charles, but glib mockery isn't refutation. I think Peters makes some excellent points, or asks some very worthwhile questions. Are we, as a society, still capable of making the sacrifices necessary to win against powers who are perfectly willing to ignore our own rules of warfare? Can we afford to play the media wars on the enemy's terms? Is there a "conventional" military answer to any of this?
I should very much like to see it demonstrated that not one of these items is of any weight or substance but I will not be holding my breath.

Posted by: TrustButVerify at January 30, 2006 8:58 AM

The Counter-Rev article sounds like a ballad on suicide bombing. Perhaps the whole reason why impose constraints on our ability to fight is because we choose not to become like them. Unless the guy is goading our civilization on the basis of "moral weakness" in not going for wanton destruction or somesuch.

In the end, Peter's article is just bitter. Wah wah the media is the devil. Wowza, the suicide bomber is the best thing since a British tank carried a fascine across no man's land.

Posted by: Charles at January 29, 2006 6:36 PM

Yeah, I was surprised how similar Gore and the NYTimes sounded. The only thing missing was declaring that there is "no cotrolling legal authority" and a few campaign donors fleeing the country rather than testifying. Maybe next the executive editor of the NYTimes will start consuming as many resources as my entire neighborhood and then lecture me on conservation and the environment.

Posted by: rutty at January 29, 2006 4:57 PM