George Soros' Spitballs

See if you can follow this logic:

In a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal Wednesday, the billionaire Democrat called for an end to the use of the phrase "war on terror," arguing that the term has encouraged a purely military response to terrorism.

Actually, our response to terrorism hasn't been "purely military." It's also been diplomatic, financial, and informational as well. Soros' problem is that the military has ANY role in our "response."

"The use of military force is a necessary element in the struggle. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified. That is where bin Laden lived and al-Qaida had its training camps. But the invasion of Iraq, as we now all know, cannot be similarly justified."

This is the "surgical strike" meme. Akin to arguing that it was a mistake to wage war against Nazi Germany, since we were only REALLY at war with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party. As if al Qaeda is the only Islamist terrorist organization, and it wasn't receiving active assistance from terror-sponsoring regimes like Iran, Syria, and yes, Saddam Hussien's Iraq.

Maybe a better metaphor is the schlock Kung Fu film where the 150 ninja bad guys come at the Bruce Lee hero one at a time. Similarly, invading Afghanistan only deprived al Qaeda of one base of operations; it was hardly final GWOT victory itself. Soros knows this because he doesn't want us to win that war.

Don't think so?

Soros maintains that the use of military force against terrorism runs the risk of killing innocent people and thereby generating sympathy and outrage, which aids the terrorists.

"In dealing with terrorism, we must take great care not to do the same thing as the terrorists and create innocent victims," Soros warns.

"If we create innocent victims, we are liable to reinforce the terrorist threat."

Not using military force against terrorism runs an even bigger risk of killing innocent people - and they would all be Americans. Which appears to be just fine with Soros, who is incapable of comprehending the difference between terrorists whose raison d'etere is killing innocent people, and our military, which bends over backwards, including taking needless casualties, to avoid collateral damage.

And in any case, the terrorist threat didn't arise in response to Western belligerence, but their own Islamic religion and our passivity in the face of repeated terrorist attacks.

Soros speaks of finding "a new consensus on fighting terrorism." What he really means is a new consensus in favor of surrendering to the terrorists. Which makes him no better than they are.