Meanwhile, and on Pakistani soil and under the very noses of its army and the ISI, the city of Quetta and the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas are becoming the incubating ground of a reorganized and protected al-Qaida. Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.You know, Hitch, us liberals aren't afraid of war. Hell, many of us have fought, and died in wars. Some of us declared them! If it turns out that we need to go into Afghanistan, we go, as Obama said we must. And you rightfully seem respectful of his position on its merits.
But, just because you think it's some sort of (pre-facto) validation of your position doesn't make it so. The Democratic position is for wars of necessity, not wars for, well, whatever we went into Iraq for (oil?).