NFL Week 4 Predictions

Thankfully there were only 14 games last week. As a result, my record improved to 8-6 without increasing the win column. If I had gone with my gut, I would have picked Houston for the upset last week and finished 9-5, but I was timid. That is a lesson learned.

Onto this week.

Patriots @ Bills
The Patriot quest for 19 straight wins continues in Buffalo, going for #18 and a tie with several other teams. In my preseason predictions, I said that the AFC East would come down to these two teams, with Buffalo making "a strong run at the title." Today, the Bills sit a dismal 0-2 and the Patriots are looking dominant again. I still say the Bills have the talent to make a run, but they have not been able to translate that potential on the field. New England is looking good so far, but I have some questions about their run defense. They are 9th in the NFL against the pass, but 23rd against the run. But Buffalo has not had a great year running the ball (29th in the league), so they won't be able to exploit the one weakness the Patriots give. Both teams are superb on pass defense. Buffalo's defense overall is the strength of the team. But New England always finds a way to score, and Buffalo doesn't. Prediction: Patriots.

Eagles @ Bears
I was really impressed with the way the Bears opened the season, especially with quarterback Rex Grossman. Unfortunately, Grossman is out for the year, along with several other Bears. The Eagles are hitting on all cylinders right now, and the Bear offense will struggle just to make first downs. Prediction: Eagles.

Redskins @ Browns
Despite their 1-2 record so far, I have been somewhat impressed with the Redskins so far. They haven't been great, but have shown remarkable improvement over last year's team. They have the 3rd ranked defense and a respectable 15th ranked offense. Their biggest problem is shooting themselves in the foot. The Browns do not have much of anything, and what little they had left with Winslow. Prediction: Redskins.

Giants @ Packers
The last time Kurt Warner faced the Packers (divisional playoffs, 2001), he completely and absolutely destroyed them. He doesn't have anywhere near the talent around or in him today as he did back with the mighty Rams. Warner has done well this year with New York, but it must be noted he has thrown only one touchdown in three games. The Packers are coming off an emotional game in Indianapolis that revealed the sad state of Packer defense, especially in the secondary. This should be a good game with the still powerful Packer offense against a decent Giant defense. If the Giants turn to Warner to air it out again, he should be able to light up that secondary. I'm torn on this one. After a game like last week, and with the Titans coming to town next week, can the Packers get out there and play their best? Can the questionable Giant offensive line hold off Green Bay's front seven to give Warner the time he needs to beat the secondary? Given the Giant weakness against the run, I will go with the Pack. Prediction: Packers.

Raiders @ Texans
This will be another shootout as two strong offenses go against two lesser defenses. The Raiders have the better defense. Prediction: Raiders.

Colts @ Jaguars
An early battle for first place in the AFC West pits the high flying Colts against the surprising, undefeated Jags. As I said last week, the Jags are the least impressive of the unbeaten teams by far. They have beaten some good teams (Broncos, Titans), but their offensive is the worst in the NFL (ranked 32). Their defense has won all three games, but now they face the best offense in the NFL (ranked 1). The Colts struggle against teams with good defense, like New England who has been them three times in a row. But the Patriots have a pretty good offense to go along with their defense. It's all well and good to slow down your opponent, but you still have to move the ball yourself and score, something the Jags have not been able to do. This is the week the Jags come down to earth. Prediction: Colts.

Bengals @ Steelers
OK, I give up. I do not know what to expect from either team. The Bengal offense has been fairly effective so far, but their defense is atrocious, especially against the rush. The Steelers are climbing back up the ranks as a rushing team (currently 11th). And they have a good defense. Prediction: Steelers.

Saints @ Cardinals
New Orleans won an emotional game against the Rams last week. Even with McAllister out, the offense put up big numbers for the overtime win. The Cardinals lost yet again, but there were some good points to come out of the Falcon game. The defense held a good offense to two field goals and got five sacks on Michael Vick. They have not given up too many points this season. The offense moved the ball and had several opportunities to score, only to fumble in the red zone. The Cards are playing better under Dennis Green, and New Orlean's version of defense will give them plenty of opportunities to score. But until they show they can win, you have to consistently pick against them. Prediction: Saints.

Falcons @ Panthers
The Falcons have started off the exact opposite of last year's team, going 3-0 and playing strong defense. It should be noted their three victories are over teams with combined 1 win this season, and the best defense they have faced is in Arizona. Sorry, but I am just not impressed. Michael Vick is still making headlines as a running back rather than a quarterback, though I see their "real" running back finally has more yards rushing than their quarterback. The Panthers appear to have righted their ship after a rocky start at Green Bay. Prediction: Panthers.

Jets @ Dolphins
You have to feel for the Dolphins what with the personnel losses, injuries, and hurricanes. They are going to be even worse than I thought they would be. Their defense at least keeps things respectable. The Jets are off to a great start, and it will continue. Prediction: Jets.

Titans @ Chargers
Ordinarily this would be a complete mismatch. But the Titans will likely be without Steve McNair for the game. Not that their passing game has lit up the league, ranking 28th in the NFL. Their defense is not what it has been in recent years. The one thing they have going for them is a good running game. The one thing the Chargers have going for them is a good running game. The passing game got off to a good start, but then then Brees relapsed to his old self. Some are thinking this will be a shootout. I see a low scoring game dominated by both running backs. Prediction: Titans.

Broncos @ Bucs
The Bucs for years were the doormat of the NFC, the butt of jokes, until Tony Dungy transformed the franchise into a powerhouse, founded on one of the great defenses of recent times. Jon Gruden came in in 2002 and put the finishing touches on the offense to bring home a Super Bowl victory. Today, a mere two seasons after the Super Bowl championship, the Bucs are looking more and more like the doormat Bucs. The offense is barely moving the ball. The defense is still respectable, but no longer the fearsome unit it was a few years ago. The Broncos are looking better than they have looked at any time since Elway left. The secondary is rock solid, lead by former Buc cornerstone John Lynch. Jake Plummer is off to another good start. And the running game is as strong as ever. No contest. Prediction: Broncos.

Rams @ 49ers
These two teams have dominated the NFC West for the past two decades or more. Well, San Fran dominated for about 18 years, the Rams the last 5. Today, the 49ers are in contention for the top spot in next year's draft and the Rams are getting by. The Ram defense is a shambles (30th in the league) and the offense has had a hard time holding onto the football. Those defensive problems are going to hurt them because one of the few things the 49ers have going for them is their running game, which is only middle of the road but better than their passing game. Still, the Rams are clearly the better team. Prediction: Rams.

Chiefs @ Ravens
This game looked great on paper before the season. Two teams vying for the Super Bowl, both defending division titles. Now, the Chiefs are just looking for a win. Any win. The KC defense is as bad as last year, and they are going up against one of the top running attacks in the NFL. The Chief offense is not as good as last year, but they are going against the Raven defense, so that does not really factor in. Prediction: Ravens.

Last Week: 8-6
Season: 27-19

Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act

I've started hearing about this new legislation which would preserve a church's tax exemption even if the church endorsed some candidate for office. The Buck Stops Here blog has some links regarding this legislation. I am not a lawyer and am not familiar with the detailed implications of this legislation. But having read some of the comments, for and against, on the bill, it seems it is trying to address one specific concern: church pastors can speak on any subject they want, except political candidates running for office. As People for the American Way puts it, "Religious leaders can speak through sermons, internal communications, or even as commentators in the news media, as long as they refrain from endorsing a candidate on behalf of the house of faith."

One of the common themes of those who oppose the bill (e.g. PFAW and The Witherspoon Society) is that a church is not a place for political partisanship. Witherspoon puts it thusly:

This bill is unwanted and unneeded by America's clergy. In a Gallup-Interfaith Alliance Foundation poll, a full 77% of clergy were opposed to their fellow clergy endorsing political candidates. Another poll conducted by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 70% of Americans feel that houses of worship should not come out in favor of one candidate over another during political elections.

I tend to agree with this thinking. I do not want to see my own church getting into the business of endorsing a candidate, of in some way working for a campaign. I have visions of walking out of the sanctuary after a service and being handed bumper stickers on my way to picking up my daughter from Sunday school. (My opposition is strengthened since I am sure my church would endorse Bush/Cheney.) Having said that, should it not be the decision of each church and its leaders how they will address political campaigns? The government has no business telling my church what it can and cannot do. I don't want my church getting involved in endorsing candidates, but that should be my pastor's decision, along with the elders of my church, not the government's.

Therefore, unless someone can point out side consequences to the bill that I do not see, I will support this bill.

Veterans for Kerry Rally

I attended a Veterans for Kerry rally here in Milwaukee today, at the war memorial on the lakefront. Jim Rassman, the Green Beret vet whom Kerry saved to earn his Bronze Star, was the featured speaker. I didn't have a notebook, so I can't give exact quotes. It was a very small crowd. The rally was at lunchtime, and there were certainly less than 50 people there, plus some news cameras.

Rassman related that he was a registered Republican for 33 years, but this year changed his registration to Democrat so he could vote for John Kerry. He said he felt abandoned by the Republican Party, being a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Much of his speech was taken up by recounting the story of his rescue by Kerry, substantially the same as he has given in print. After relating the story, Rassman declared that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were liars, motivated by a hatred of Kerry for speaking out against the Vietnam War when he returned. "It was a war we should have all spoken out against," Rassman declared to applause. Rassman characterized Kerry's efforts as having a dramatic impact on ending the war, saying that without Kerry and his colleagues, Nixon would likely have continued to the war much longer.

The climax of Rassman's speech was to draw comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. Vietnam was a mistake, Rassman said, that the nation endured for ten years. Iraq is a mistake, he continued, that we should not wait ten years to address. Rassman repeated many times that Bush is lying to the American people about the state of affairs in Iraq and that our troop are poorly trained and ill-equipped for the task. One soundbite statement from Rassman was that Bush's concept of "command responsibility" was to "dodge responsibility" for everything.

Being a veterans rally, Rassman also talked about Bush's treatment of veterans. He said the list of US veterans applying for disability is growing but that Bush is cutting the number of VA investigators, whose job it is to declare the veteran is disabled.

A notable theme in Rassman's speech was addressing the character assassination techniques of the Republican Party, and the Bush family specifically. He gave a passionate defense of Max Cleeland, asking how a man who served his country faithfully, losing three limbs in the process, could have his patriotism questioned. He has seen his own reputation shredded by Republicans and their proxies for supporting Kerry. He related many stories about the smear campaign by then Governor Bush against John McCain during the Republican primaries in the 2000 campaign, including appeals to racism ("McCain has a black baby") and besmirching McCain's service in Vietnam (he's the Manchurian Candidate, having been imprisoned and brainwashed by the North Vietnamese).

The Case for Kerry

Scott Aaron: This is Dr. Scott Aaron with Joe Bluehead, a Democratic party operative, talking about the Kerry campaign.
Joe Bluehead: Good to be here.
SA: Let's start with the primaries. Senator Kerry was well behind for quite a while late in 2003, but in January came roaring back to win New Hampshire and most of the primaries. Why do you think he was able to come back?
JB: My fellow Democrats realized that Kerry was the most electable of the slate of candidates we were presented with.
SA: Yes, electability. What do you see in Kerry that makes him electable?
JB: What do you mean?
SA: What distinguished Kerry from the other candidates to make him more electable?
JB: He was distinguished from the others because he was more electable.
SA: What set him apart?
JB: His electability.
SA: What makes him electable?
JB: His electability makes him electable.
SA: I see this isn't getting anywhere, so let's move on. What do you see in the Senator that would make him a good president for this country?
JB: Well, 35 years ago, before many voters were even born, John Kerry was a low ranking naval officer who saw combat and won some medals.
...long pause...
SA: Are you suggesting that non sequitur has something to do with my question?
JB: Of course.
SA: Please explain.
JB: He saw combat. He knows what war is all about and won't make the stupid mistakes Bush has made.
SA: So commanding a boat trains one to make far-reaching strategic decisions?
JB: Yes. Besides, at least Kerry served. Bush served, but not in combat. Cheney didn't even serve.
SA: Like Clinton.
JB: Totally different. Clinton avoided service to live in Europe, have a good time, and improve his education in preparation for being a great president. Cheney just had other priorities.
SA: um, OK.
JB: And have you heard that Bush missed a physical back in the mid-70's? I mean, come on. How much clearer could our choice be?
SA: Let's talk about Iraq. The polls show the president very strong on this issue. Yet, the Kerry campaign has chosen to make this the cornerstone of his campaign. What distinguishes the Bush approach from what Kerry would do?
JB: This is the most important issue of our day. We must be clear on the differences between this administration and the future Kerry administration. Bush has done everything wrong in Iraq and Kerry would do it right.
SA: So what precisely did Bush do wrong?
JB: Everything.
SA: What exactly?
JB: Everything.
SA: OK, what would Kerry have done differently?
JB: Everything.
SA: If Kerry had been president in 2002, how would he have handled the Iraq question?
JB: John Kerry would have handled the situation totally differently, in a way that would not have alienated our allies and gotten us into the quagmire we're in now. This is why we need Kerry to be elected.
SA: In what ways would Kerry's approach have been different?
JB: In every way.
SA: Can you provide any specifics?
JB: What do you mean, specifics?
SA: Lay out exactly how Kerry would be different.
JB: He would have been, and will be, totally different! How much more precise does one have to be? And have I mentioned that he's not Bush?
SA: OK. Well, thanks for talking with me. That was Joe Bluehead of the Democratic party explaining the case for electing John Kerry. The case:

• he's electable in some undefined way,
• he was a low ranking officer a generation ago commanding a small boat, which in some unexplained way connects to be commander-in-chief,
• he would have handled Iraq differently than Bush, whatever that means,
• and he's not George Bush.

NFL Week 3 Predictions

I got spanked last week, going a miserable 8-8. Picks are hard early in the season as teams are still finding themselves. (That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.) As I alluded to last week, you can't read too much into September performance. A team can look great one week, lousy the next. But, I think I can do better this week. Peter King gives every team one mulligan a season, so I will give myself one.

Onto this week.

Cardinals @ Falcons
This is a clear mismatch. The Falcons have gotten off to a fast start, going 2-0 so far. Vick last week looked more comfortable in his new offense. He is still making his splash as a runner rather than a quarterback. Vick's yards-per-game passing average is 171 so far, just slightly over half of Vinny Testaverde's league leading 338.5 average. But he rushed for 109 yards against the Rams and is the team leader in rushing. Interestingly, the key offensive statistics for Atlanta are little different than for Arizona. Passing: 342 yards for Vick, 341 for McCown. Rushing: 119 yards for Vick, 118 yards for Smith. Receiving (leaders for each team): 131 yards for Crumpler, 106 yards for Fitzgerald. The key difference is on defense, where the Cardinals are a lowly 30th in the league against the run and are giving up an average of 412.5 yards per game. Prediction: Falcons.

Ravens @ Bengals
Another of those reunion games, with Baltimore facing its former defensive coordinator Marvin Lewis. For the first time since the Ravens came into being, this is a very even matchup. Lewis has his young Bengal defense playing better, though still no match for the Raven unit. The Ravens are banged up and the Bengal offense is playing well, at least statistically. (They failed to score a touchdown last week.) Due to the injuries in Baltimore and the weakness of their passing game, I will go with Cincinnati. Prediction: Bengals.

Eagles @ Lions
Coming off an impressive win against the Vikings, the Eagles now take on the undefeated, division leading Lions. I just had to say that, since I probably will not get the chance to write so highly about Detroit again any time soon. The Eagles won impressively on the scoreboard, but they got pushed around all over the field. The Vikings could have easily put up two more touchdowns were it not for their own mistakes. The one thing the defense accomplished was to put constant pressure on Culpepper, recording four sacks. The one big play McNabb had was the touchdown to Owens, which a Tice challenge would have overturned. The Lions are playing well on offense, with Harrington starting to come into his own with some good receivers to work with. They may be undefeated, but the Lions have only beaten the Bears and the Texans. The Eagles are the better team all around, but they need to take care to not overlook a team that plays well at home. Prediction: Eagles.

Texans @ Chiefs
If the Lions sitting atop their division undefeated is a surprise, what does one call seeing the Chiefs at 0-2 on the bottom of theirs? They are a game behind the Chargers, for crying out loud! This matchup of winless teams features the two worst defenses in the NFL, in terms of points allowed (the only stat that really matters). Both feature strong offensive units. The Chiefs will be without their workhorse running back, Priest Holmes. I really, really want to pick Houston for an upset, mainly because the Texan offense is at full strength and the Chiefs are hobbled a bit because of Holmes. The game is in KC, and coming off an 8-8 week I don't feel bold enough. Prediction: Chiefs.

Steelers @ Dolphins
If the Steelers were at full strength, I would pick them to win this clash of disappointments. But they are starting a virgin quarterback in Roethlisberger. The Dolphins do not have much in the way of offense, but their defense is still good. Pittsburgh has a weak defense, and will not have much offense with Ben. Prediction: Dolphins.

Bears @ Vikings
You just know the Vikings have been kicking themselves all week. After pushing the Eagle defense all over the field, and winning in just about every statistical category except score and turnovers, they have to face a surprising Bear team coming off an impressive win against the Packers. I was impressed with young QB Rex Grossman and the rest of the Bear offense. But they are banged up in the secondary, missing two starters to injury. Not what you want when facing the fireworks of Minnesota. Prediction: Vikings.

Browns @ Giants
The Browns are another banged up team, having lost their prize draft pick Winslow among others, and are coming off a truly awful game. The Giants are coming off a solid game with Kurt Warner finally breaking that losing streak that stretched back to Super Bowl 36. He's not MVP Warner by a long shot, but he is showing that he can still be effective, if the pass rush can be kept at bay. The Browns aren't the team to pressure Warner, so look for the Giants to put up some touchdowns. Prediction: Giants.

Saints @ Rams
A matchup of two high power offenses and two weak defenses. The Saints have had the talent on offense for a while now, but have always underachieved. The Rams have the more reliable offense and are playing at home where they have a distinct advantage. Prediction: Rams.

Jaguars @ Titans
The Jags are 2-0 so far, but have to be the least impressive 2-0 team out there. The touted offense has scored two touchdowns so far, one per game. They have only scored 20 points this season. The Jags are winning because of a defense that is allowing 8 points per game and 2.8 yards per rush (best in the AFC). The victory over Denver was as much as Bronco errors as it was about Jaguar football. The Jags won't have that advantage this week against one of the better teams. Prediction: Titans.

Chargers @ Broncos
In my week 1 predictions I pointed out that no one goes 0-16 in the NFL these days. The Chargers proved that the first week but getting in the W column. Now they face a quality team. The Broncos should be 2-0. If Shanahan hadn't gotten cute at the end of the Jaguar game, they likely would have kicked the field goal and gone up 9-7. But Mike wanted one more run to snip a few yards off the field goal attempt, Griffin fumbles, game over. The Chargers have scored a lot of points, but have given up a lot as well. The Bronco defense should be able to cut down on the Charger scoring and Jake Plummer and Griffin will exploit the sad defense of San Diego. Prediction: Broncos.

Packers @ Colts
A matchup between two of the premier quarterbacks in the NFL. For Manning, this is old news. So far, he's faced Brady, McNair, and now Favre. The Colt offense is as explosive as ever. Edgerrin James has rushed for 266 yards so far this season, against two top defenses. But he may not be playing due to a hamstring injury. Indy has a capable backup in Dominic Rhodes. Manning is off to his normal, high octane start. The Packers, on the other hand, have been very inconsistent. The defense played well against the Panthers, then fell apart against the Bears. Favre has not gotten into a groove at all passing. The Pack have become a powerhouse rushing team. But for that approach to work, you have to have a strong defense (look at Baltimore). With a weak defense, you need to have a solid, consistent, high-powered passing game (look at KC last year). The Packers do not have either. They will be up and down this year, as they were last year, but are no match for the Colts. (On the other hand, I am 0-2 picking Packer games this year.) Prediction: Colts.

49ers @ Seahawks
The Seahawks are clicking in all facets of the game. So far they are living up to the preseason hype as a Super Bowl contender. The 49ers are looking like a team that shed most of its decent players in the offseason and are playing with players who would be 2nd and 3rd stringers on other teams. Wait, they did do that. Prediction: Seahawks.

Bucs @ Raiders
How the mighty have fallen. What a difference a year makes. (Insert your favorite cliche here.) The Super Bowl 37 rematch presents little drama as the 0-2 Bucs, a.k.a. Raiders East, face the 1-1 Raiders, a.k.a. Raiders West. A lot has been and will be made of the reunion element of the game, mainly because the football element of the game will not be impressive. The Buc offense has done exactly nothing this season. No touchdowns. And fans thought they were bad on offense when Dungy was the coach. They are 30th in the league in yards per game and rushing offense. They climb to 26th in passing offense. In fairness, the Bucs are 3rd in the league in yards per game allowed on defense. But, the Raiders are 4th in the league in that stat, so the advantage is neutralized. The Raider offense, while not reminding anyone of the juggernaut of 2002, is moving along nicely. Prediction: Raiders.

Cowboys @ Redskins
A classic coaching matchup with Parcells and Gibbs facing off again. Both teams are 1-1 and have been very inconsistent. The Redskins lost to the Giants in a game where they turned the ball over 7 times. Having only lost by 6 points, one can definitely say they threw the game away and should be 2-0. The Redskin offense is clicking, but with start Ramsey at quarterback. Given that I like Ramsey and thought Gibbs' only mistake so far was in trading for Brunell, that's not too bad of a move. This game is about defense. The Cowboy offense is clicking too, at least in the passing game. Testaverde is the league leader in passing yardage (677 yards in 2 games). The Cowboy defense hasn't done well so far, giving up 47 points. But most of those came against Minnesota. They held the Browns without a touchdown. The Browns. In the end, the Skins bring more to the table. Prediction: Redskins.

Last Week: 8-8
Season: 19-13

Nation Building

Many have already commented on this, but let me add my two cents. One of the biggest problems plaguing the Bush administration is in dealing with the countries we have conquered, err liberated, after the combat has concluded. The US military waged a stellar campaign against Saddam Hussein's military in 2003, overrunning Iraq in mere weeks when even optimistic predictions foresaw months of bitter fighting. Then came the occupation, with its myriad mistakes and growing failures.

Should we be surprised by this? Conservative Republicans long criticized the Clinton administration for "nation building" in places like Bosnia. (The US and its allies put an end to genocide and helped create a stable, peaceful nation. My God! How horrible!) During the first presidential debate of the 2000 campaign, Bush was asked, "How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?" His response:

Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

In the second debate that year, Mr. Bush said,

[The US involvement in Somalia] started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war.

So we see that foundational to Bush's view of the military is that they are there to fight and win, not to build a nation. In Iraq, we see this played out. The military fights brilliantly to win the war, then is totally unprepared for what comes after.

Interestingly, the future president said a key component in a decision to commit military forces to combat is "whether or not there was an exit strategy." The first question one can ask, of course, is what was the exit strategy in Iraq when the president made the decision to go? He presumably had one, but what was it? What I find more interesting looking back at this four years later is that Bush made a distinction between an exit strategy and nation building. He says, essentially, we need an exit strategy from a combat engagement but nation building is something different, again something played out in Iraq where the administration did very little occupation planning before the war began. What Iraq has demonstrated so clearly is that, in a war of conquest, nation building is an essential component of any exit strategy. Before we can leave Iraq or Afghanistan, we have to rebuild those nations. To fail to do so would simply bring chaos to those nations, turning them into breeding grounds for terrorist activity.

History is replete with examples of the consequences of not following military victory with nation building. The following are just a couple.

1. World War I destroyed the German imperial government, leaving a power vacuum in Germany. The European victors, against the advice of President Wilson, did not engage themselves in rebuilding Germany. Rather, they were content with imposing extreme punishment on the nation, which paralyzed its economy and undermined the fledgling democracy struggling to take root. The result of this shortsightedness? Adolph Hitler, who exploited the resultant power vacuum and chaos to his advantage, taking dictatorial power in 1933, later giving the world World War II and the Holocaust. Contrast this with end of the Second World War, in which the United States committed to a massive program of nation building in Germany and Japan. The result of this leadership? Two nations transformed into loyal allies and stable democracies.
2. Throughout the 1980's the United States supported Afghan insurgents fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. When victory was finally achieved with the Soviet withdrawal, the United States did little for Afghanistan. Into the consequent vacuum eventually stepped the Taliban, who imposed order and a measure of stability to the nation. The group also provide safe haven for al Qaida.

We readily see the need for nation building as a followup to military victory. An "exit strategy" and nation building are inexorably linked, at least in a long term vision for success. When a president cannot see that, we are destined to fail in the long run.

Deterioration in Iraq

I have long felt that the situation in Iraq is not as bad as the media portray it. Reporters focus on the bombings and relentless trickle of US deaths, while large parts of Iraq are at peace and the new government is getting itself together. But it is becoming clear that the situation is deteriorating. The rebellion, at first sparse and uncoordinated, is organizing and gaining ground. The rebels now control the entire city of Fallujah. Terrorist bombings are getting larger and more devastating. A recent USA Today article puts it thus:

More than 300 Iraqis died last week in car bombings and other violence. Attacks on U.S. soldiers have escalated to more than 50 a day, and scores of Iraqis and foreigners have been kidnapped. U.S. intelligence estimates warn of an increasingly fragmented Iraq and a possible civil war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Elections in only part of the country could increase chances for a violent breakup.

So far, Iraqi government and US forces have been unable to effectively confront these challenges, which has emboldened the enemy to strike harder. This is the most damaging element this deterioration. The enemy has demonstrated that they can defeat occupation and government forces, which will encourage more enemy activity and will bring about a greater coordination of activity across Iraq. The failure to deal effectively with al Sadr, leaving him free after his repeated defiance of and rebellion against the government, has contributed to this.

Even Republican leaders in Congress are beginning to criticize the administration's handling of the situation in Iraq. Senator Chuck Hagel said, "The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy." Senator Richard Lugar complained of the administration's "incompetence" in handling Iraqi reconstruction.

The consensus seems to be that a military offensive by the US Army and Marines is required to retake Fallujah. This is clearly crucial. But we must also help build a more effective Iraqi military force to assert the authority of the provisional government. Without that, we merely extend our occupation and propagate the view that Allawi and his government are no more than puppets propped up by the US military. We must focus on building and strengthening the government to deal with these challenges.

NFL Week 2 Predictions

Well, I went 11-5 my first week. Not too bad, not fantastic. There were some real surprises to me in the early games on Sunday, not to mention the (pleasant) surprise seeing Green Bay manhandle Carolina. Before fans get too excited or depressed about opening weekend, let me remind you of one game in last year's opening: Buffalo 31, New England 0. The Bills looked fantastic and New England was pathetic. For the rest of the season, including post-season, New England went 17-1 and Buffalo went 4-11, including a 31-0 loss to New England to close the season.

Onto this week.

Rams @ Falcons
The Falcon defense struggled to stop the 49er offense last week. The Falcon offense struggled against an average defense. The Rams are much more potent on offense than the 49ers, though they didn't score too many points against the lowly Cardinals. The low score was the result of turnovers in the red zone. Atlanta is looking to break a 7 game losing streak to St. Louis, but it won't happen this week. Prediction: Rams.

Steelers @ Ravens
The Raven offense did next to nothing last week against the Browns, with their usually dominant running game completely stifled. More surprisingly, their usually dominant defense couldn't stop the underwhelming Brown offense. The Steelers showed life in their running game, against the presumably improved Raider run defense. Most importantly, the Steeler defense played a reasonable game, pressuring Gannon and getting sacks and interceptions. Prediction: Steelers.

Texans @ Lions
Houston's loss was one of those surprises I endured last week. I still don't really understand what happened. The Texans put up decent numbers passing and running. But they struggled to finish off drives, settling for field goals early on. Clearly their defense did not perform well. Detroit, even during the long road losing streak, played reasonably well at home. This game will be dominated by offense. Both offensive units appear decent and balanced. Given the Lion ability to play well at home and the Texan difficulty in finishing off drives, I will take the Lions. Prediction: Lions.

Bears @ Packers
We all know the Packers are tough at home. The Packers are tough period. Beating the Panthers is impressive, but the question marks I had about the team before the season are still there. The defense attacked the rebuilt Carolina line relentlessly, forcing the capable but still relatively inexperienced Delhomme to make bad throws. When the Packers didn't attack, the Panthers moved the ball effectively. So the Packer defense must still be viewed skeptically. Favre had a nondescript performance, so he still should be viewed as a legend in decline. Having said all that, they are facing the Bears. Prediction: Packers.

Broncos @ Jaquars
The Jags were expected to be a surprise team this year, but their offense struggled for 58 minutes against the Bills last week. The Jag defense did little against Buffalo's offense. Denver clicked on both sides of the ball. This one's easy. Prediction: Broncos.

Panthers @ Chiefs
We all know that KC has one of the top offenses in the NFL. The Panther defense just didn't look good against Green Bay, and it will be much harder to stop the Chiefs. The Panthers were especially vulnerable to Ahman Green's runs against the right side of the defensive line, a flaw I guarantee Priest Holmes will look to exploit. But, as mentioned above, the Panthers were able to muster decent offense when the Packer defense laid off the blitzes, and the Chief defense is still best described as "existent." So, in the end, this will be another offensive game, and it comes down to who has the better offense. Prediction: Chiefs.

49ers @ Saints
San Fran is just outmatched in this one. Their defense struggled against the Falcons. They will get shredded by the Saints superior offense. In the virgin hands of Ken Dorsey, the 49er offense will struggle just to get first downs. Prediction: Saints.

Redskins @ Giants
Washington looked pretty good in its opener, and the Giants looked pretty bad. The Skins were prepared, the Giants befuddled. The Skins played defense, the Giants did not. Prediction: Redskins.

Colts @ Titans
The game of the weekend. These are the teams likely to compete for the AFC South title again, and features a matchup of last year's co-MVPs. The Colts beat the Titans in both meetings last year, accounting for half of Tennessee's 4 losses. Both teams feature prolific offenses. Only Tennessee fields a quality defense. Based on that, one would expect the Titans to win. But Chris Brown, the new Titan running back, sprained his ankle last week. And, though he topped 100 yards rushing in the first half, half that total came on just one 52 yard run. Given that the Colts appear to have the Titans number lately, I'll go with them. Prediction: Colts.

Seahawks @ Bucs
A matchup between one of the top teams in the NFC, and the declining Bucs. Tampa's defense is a shadow of its former self and will have a very hard time slowing down the Seattle offense. Seattle's defense will have little trouble slowing down Tampa's offense. Prediction: Seahawks.

Browns @ Cowboys
Cleveland's win last week over Baltimore was the upset of the week, to me. OK, San Diego won, but they beat a team coming off a losing season. The Browns beat a playoff team. This week, they face another playoff team in Dallas. I was quite surprised at the efficiency of Dallas' offense last week. Who is the leading passer in the NFL so far, in terms of yardage? Vinny Testaverde! I think Cleveland was pumped last week to regain a little self-respect against the team that scorched them for 500 yards of rushing last season, and they did that. This week they come back to earth with a resounding thud. Prediction: Cowboys.

Patriots @ Cardinals
This week, the Pats go for consecutive win #17, and face one of the worst teams in the league. The Cards play well at home. Last season, they beat Green Bay and Minnesota in the desert. The Pats would do well to not take the game lightly. I doubt Bellichick would allow such a thing (these guys aren't the Vikings). Prediction: Patriots.

Bills @ Raiders
I expected much more from the Bills last week. Their defense played as expected, quite well. But their offense, with all the tools at their disposal, did nothing. I still think they have a shot at being a top tier team in the AFC, and the Raiders don't. The weak Oakland defense will give Buffalo offense the chance to get back on track. Prediction: Bills.

Jets @ Chargers
These are two teams I picked to lose last week, only to find myself in error. This looks like it could be a good offensive matchup. At running back, the great LaDainian Tomlinson against future Hall of Famer Curtis Martin, he of the 196 yards rushing last week. At QB, highly regarded Chad Pennington against the surprising Drew Brees, who is trying to salvage his career. Both defenses gave up a fairly high number of points. The Chargers will find a much more difficult opponent in the Jets than in the Texans, who have the maturity and experience to win. Prediction: Jets.

Dolphins @ Bengals
The Dolphins were as pathetic as expected last week. Though the Bengals lost last week, the Carson Palmer era got off to a fine start with the new QB going 18 of 27 for 248 yards, two touchdowns, and a QB rating of 105.2. Hats off to Palmer, who I expected to struggle early on. The Bengal running game got off to a strong start too. Their weakness is on defense, a surprise given Coach Lewis' background as a defensive coordinator. (Of course, Lewis got his start on the defense minded Ravens under Brian Billick, a former star offensive coordinator.) Against a pathetic (there's that word again) offense, it won't matter too much. Prediction: Bengals.

Vikings @ Eagles
Another good matchup for Monday night. Two teams with Super Bowl dreams, two teams with big, mobile quarterbacks (9 touchdowns last week between them) and an elite receiver. Two teams with questionable defense. This game will be a mega-shootout, with the win going to the team with the better offense. The Vikings just have too many weapons. Prediction: Vikings.

Last Week: 11-5
Season: 11-5

What If We Had Not Gone into Iraq?

I just read a pretty good op/ed from Richard Reeves. I especially liked the quote he has from an Atlantic Monthly article:

I have sat through arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should be considered the worst strategic error in American history -- or only the worst since Vietnam. Many say things in Iraq will eventually look much better than they do now. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: It has increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial and diplomatic tools with which we can respond.

There can be little question that, contrary to the president's assertions, the war in Iraq has put this country at risk. Another great quote from the Atlantic Monthly article:

Are we better off in basic security than before we invaded Iraq? The answer is no. An unnecessary war has consumed American Army and other ground resources, to the point where we have nothing left in the cupboard for another contingency -- for instance, should the North Koreans decide that with the Americans completely absorbed in Iraq, now is the time to do something.

One last quote, reflecting how consumed the military has become with Iraq and the consequent loss of security, this from Reeves:

Those surveillance satellites that once were pointed at the Soviet Union and then at Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida have been pointed at Iraq for almost three years.

So rather than spy on an enemy who has attacked our country and killed nearly 3000, we're caught up spying on a country that posed little threat to our security.

So many people want to say that we are safer under Bush. I think of a statement from Star Wars: who is the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?

Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins

Vice-president Dick Cheney is resorting to scare tactics to try to win re-election. Yesterday he said "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." This is a pretty audacious statement from the VP. If we assume he considers himself and the president as the "right" choice, then he is warning that a Kerry victory will result in a major terrorist attack on the US. Though it does not logically follow, the implication of this statement is that a Bush victory will protect us from such an attack. Hmmm. Those are words destined to blow up in the second Bush administration's face, should another attack come.

Many will probably quote the statement above and comment on it. Less quoted will be the next sentence in which the VP warned about a relapse to the "pre-9/11 mind-set'' if Kerry were elected. Apparently, Cheney views this mindset as bad. Let's think about it. Let us consider the period from 1972, when the PLO hit the Munich Olympics in one of the earliest examples of Islamic terror hitting the larger world, through the end of Bill Clinton's presidency in January 2001. This 29 year period covers six presidents, four Republican and two Democrat. We can safely say the mentality espoused by all these administrations in fighting terrorism represents the "pre-9/11 mind-set." In this period, with this supposedly failed mentality, how many Islamic terrorist attacks were carried out on US soil? One, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. One attack in 29 years. How can you call the approach taken during that period a failure?

There is a common mindset that says somehow the world was fundamentally changed on 9/11/2001 when the Trade Center fell. It hasn't. The world is fundamentally the same. What has changed is the American sense of security, which was lost on that terrible day. Were there mistakes and failures in the intelligence analysis in the months prior to 9/11? Obviously. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Learn from the mistakes. The system worked well. One terrorist attack fell through the cracks and got carried out. It happened to be a particularly spectacular attack, but it doesn't change the fact that many other attacks were disrupted and prevented.

The mindset Cheney disparages prevented many attacks on the United States. That which Cheney apparently prefers has caused a thousand American deaths in Iraq, created huge national debts, alienated many of our friends around the world, and has served to rally our enemy, but has done little if anything to improve our security. We have destroyed a regime that posed no threat to us, so no security was gained. We have disrupted high-level al Qaida operation by forcing its leaders to scramble into hiding and arresting others, but the organization continues to operate and carry out attacks. So we are not safer.

We have expended considerable energy, treasure, and blood in this so-called war on terror, but achieved little of substance. The "pre-9/11 mind-set" that Cheney so denigrates was considerably cheaper in terms of energy, treasure, and blood, and actually achieved something. Maybe a lapse back to the good-ole days is a good thing.

NFL Week 1 Predictions

I intend to post weekly predictions of each game in the NFL season. I did pretty well last year, in Yahoo's Pro-Pickem, averaging about 10 correct picks per week. Let's see how I do this year.

Colts @ Patriots
The Patriots begin their quest for consecutive victories 16-19 with a rematch of consecutive victory #14, a.k.a. the 2003 AFC Championship. This matchup is between two of the best teams in the AFC, and winner will take away a possibly crucial tie-breaker advantage for the playoffs. New England has not looked so good in the preseason, going 1-3. But the one time the starters played for an extended time, they looked great again. The Colts haven't improved their defense too much. The Patriot secondary will still have Peyton's number, even with the new enforcement of the rules in secondary coverage. Prediction: Patriots.

Bucs @ Redskins
The Bucs are in rebuilding mode and have a shaky offensive line. The Redskins are improving, have significant talent on the defense, and a propensity to blitz. With Buc QB Brad Johnson on the run every play, he won't be able to put up the numbers he usually does. Prediction: Redskins.

Raiders @ Steelers
The Steelers are a better team than many expect, with a balanced offense, but still a weak defense. The Raiders have a weak defense but a good offense. This one should be a high scoring game, coming down to who has the better offense. Prediction: Steelers.

Seahawks @ Saints
Seattle is one of the best teams in the NFC and will take this one easily. Prediction: Seahawks.

Chargers @ Texans
Can anyone actually pick the Chargers to win anything this year? Odds are they will win something somewhere. No one has gone 0-16 since the 70's. Even last year's unit won four games. Prediction: Texans.

Lions @ Bears
The Lions haven't won on the road since the 2000 season, 24 straight road losses, an NFL record. This will be one of their best opportunities to end that streak. Detroit is rising and the Bears are not. Prediction: Lions.

Cardinals @ Rams
Another of those seeming joke matchups. Can anyone pick the Cardinals this year? Aren't they the NFC version of the Chargers? Yes to the first, no to the second (the 49ers are going to be pathetic). I expect to pick the Cardinals a few times this year. But not this week. The Rams at home are near unstoppable, and the Cards don't have much of a defense. Prediction: Rams.

Bengals @ Jets
This is a tough one to call. Palmer hasn't seen the field in a regular season game, but they have a lot of weapons on offense. ("Bengals" and "weapons" in the same sentence, and we're not talking about the irate fans? Whoa!) The Jets don't have as many. Both quarterbacks have something to prove, but Palmer has more to work with. Prediction: Bengals.

Titans @ Dolphins
This one is easy. The Titans are one of the best teams in the AFC (though in decline), the Dolphins will end up one of the worst. Both have good defensive units, but the Dolphins have little offense. Prediction: Titans.

Ravens @ Browns
With time and the retirement of Art Modell, this matchup of the old and new Browns has lost its former drama. It is now just another game, this time between a team with Super Bowl aspirations against a team with fantasies of a .500 season. Prediction: Ravens.

Jaguars @ Bills
This is an intriguing matchup, between two teams coming off losing seasons but with hopes of contending for the Super Bowl. Buffalo ended the season with one of the top defenses, and has potent weapons in Bledsoe, Henry, and Moulds, if the offensive line can block. The Jaguars have an exciting offense but questions on the defense, especially in the pass rush. The way to beat Drew Bledsoe is with relentless pass rush, and Jacksonville won't have it. That will allow the Buffalo offense to dominate. Prediction: Bills.

Falcons @ 49ers
A team with playoff ambitions against a team destined to contend for the top pick in next year's draft. Hmm. Who to pick? Prediction: Falcons.

Giants @ Eagles
Another intriguing matchup. Giant QB Kurt Warner showed he still has something left from his MVP days, when given the chance to stand in the pocket. Like the Bills, if the offensive line can provide some protection, New York has some weapons on offense. And they are going up against a declining defense in Philadelphia. But the Eagles do have pass rush specialist Jevon Kearse on the field, and a blitz-happy defensive coordinator. The Eagle offense will have to contend with a weaker than normal running game. (Last year's committee of three backs has been replaced by a single back, the weakest of the three.) Warner will get blitzed repeatedly, as he has ever since Super Bowl 36, and will look about as good as he has since that Super Bowl. Prediction: Eagles.

Cowboys @ Vikings
Minnesota's Achilles heal last year was playing weak teams. The Cowboys went to the playoffs, and so are not a weak team. So one expects the Vikings to play well. This is a classic matchup between a top defense (Dallas) against a top offense (Minnesota). In such games, I look at the opposite numbers, i.e. the Dallas offense against the Viking defense, and look to who wins that matchup. Minnesota does easily. Prediction: Vikings.

Chiefs @ Broncos
Yet another Week 1 matchup with possible echoes in the post-season. The winner will have a shot at a tie-break advantage over the other. This is another classic matchup, with KC's dominant offense against Denver's not-quite-dominant defense. So, again, the key will be the opposite matchup: Denver's not-quite-dominant offense against KC's, um, existent defense. This isn't clear since I expect KC's defense to more resemble an NFL-grade unit this year. The game will be high-scoring. Denver beat KC once last year, and nearly beat them the other time. The Broncos have a distinct home-field advantage. Prediction: Broncos.

Packers @ Panthers
The AFC has a rematch of last year's conference title game, and the NFC has what should have been a rematch of the NFC title game as bookends to Week 1. (4th and 26! AAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!) Anyway, the Panther defense will do a good job stopping both Ahman Green and Brett Favre, with Favre throwing two or three interceptions against a good secondary. The Packer defense will struggle against the Panther offense, especially if Delhomme starts throwing it a lot, which he probably will since the weakest part of the Packer D is the secondary. Prediction: Panthers.

Why Kerry Will Lose II

John Kerry and the Democrats lost this election two years ago. In the summer and fall of 2002, the Bush administration started making its big push for a war in Iraq. They started relentless propaganda about the mountain of intelligence data proving that Baathist Iraq was a major threat to American security. They started fanning the misunderstanding that Hussein was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. Facing a mid-term election, the Democrats made the tactical decision to essentially go along with the administration. They did not challenge claims about intelligence, though some prominent senators knew it was exaggerated. They did not attempt to correct the administrations misdirection associating Hussein with 9/11. When the vote to authorize action came up before the election, most Democrats voted for it.

Now, the party must pay the price for that cowardly decision. By acquiescing to the president in 2002, they ceded the dominant issue in American politics to the president. They allowed him to frame the debate in ways that benefitted him. By the time Democrats began challenging the president on the intelligence data, the belief that the data was what Bush said it was was deeply entrenched in the American psyche. The connection between Iraq and the so-called war on terror was firmly established. By allowing the president to frame Iraq his way, the Democrats handed Iraq to the president as an issue.

Iraq is a losing proposition for the Democrats because it's Bush's. As long as the debate is dominated by Iraq, and the Democrats have even encouraged this for some bizarre reason, Bush will win. Is it any coincidence that in the week where we see multiple terrorist acts in Russia and Israel (none by our actual enemy, al Qaeda), Bush surges ahead in the polls.

I've described Kerry's campaign as reminiscent of Bob Dole's 1996 quixotic quest against Clinton. This is another parallel. In 1996, Clinton's strength was the economy. He was vulnerable elsewhere, but on the economy he was solid. So what was Dole's strategy? Attack Clinton on the economy. Not only that but Dole, an avowed critic of Reaganomics, promoted a return to Reaganomics. That strategy gave Clinton what was probably the easiest campaign of his career. In 2004, the Democrats decide to challenge Bush on his strongest issue. To do so, they decide on a guy who a generation served as a low-level officer in the military and received some combat decorations. (Somehow this makes him qualified to be commander-in-chief, from the same party that argued the exact opposite when Clinton was running.) Now, Kerry must constantly defend his military record while Bush cruises to easy victory.

The Democratic party leadership made the incompetent, irresponsible decision in 2002 to fold to Bush on Iraq, handing him the issue. Two years later, by deciding to fight the campaign on Bush's strength, they have stupidly sentenced this country to another four years of Bush. Thanks. Can the party please get some new leadership?

Kerry Criticizes Cheney for Avoiding Vietnam War

John Kerry has criticized Vice President Cheney for not serving in Vietnam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that war end 31 years ago? Does it really matter if Kerry served and Cheney did not? Clinton didn't serve either, and he turned out pretty well in the White House. I have already predicted Kerry's defeat. Here's another reason. The best he can come up with as a reason to vote for him is that he served in Vietnam decades ago. That's not much of a reason to vote for him.

Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away

New Scientist magazine is reporting the discovery of a mysterious radio signal from space that "happens to be the best candidate yet for a contact by intelligent aliens in the nearly six-year history of the SETI@home project." As an astrophysicist myself (at least by training), I'm skeptical but this is an interesting observation. It could well be a telescope defect (only one telescope has detected this signal, but Arecibo is the largest, and therefore most sensitive telescope, and the signal is weak). There is no detectable star, let alone planet, in the direction of the signal. But until the scientists can conclusively demonstrate a cause for the signal, the possibility of having detected an alien broadcast will excite many people's imagination.

I have always been somewhat skeptical of the SETI project. The signal is found at the frequency of hydrogen's 21 cm line. This is the frequency of light emitted or absorbed when the electron in hydrogen flips spin relative to the proton. SETI scientists believe this frequency is "one of the main frequencies at which hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, readily absorbs and emits energy." There are plenty of "fundamental" frequencies associated with hydrogen, e.g. the 13.6 eV binding energy (the energy that holds the electon and proton together to form hydrogen) or the Lyman alpha line. The only thing that is special about the 21 cm line is that it is in the radio regime, which we humans use for electronic communication. Just because we use radio does not mean some other alien species would as well. But the scientists have to make some assumptions on what to look for, so choosing the 21 cm line is a practical necessity.

Winning the War on Terror and Bombings in Israel

Yesterday, both Senator Kerry and President Bush declared that the so-called war on terror is winnable by the United States, and that under their leadership it will be won. These comments come a day after the president declared, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." Bush was right the first time. Both candidates are demonstrating a choice of short-term political posturing at the expense of the future.

What does winning this war mean? How do you define victory? That's the first problem. As long as there have been explosives, there have been men and women willing to strap those explosives to their chest and walk into a crowded building. No amount of military might will prevent some lunatic from killing himself this way. Therefore, there will always be terrorist activity. The war the United States has been waging for 3 years, the nation of Israel has been fighting for 56 years. After all the death and destruction, on both sides, is Israel any closer to victory in their war against Hamas and other terrorist groups? Ask the survivors of yesterday's twin bus bombings.

It is wise to remember and learn from history. There was a time in Vietnam where the war was actually popular in the US, across the political spectrum. What happened? The political and military leadership continuously assured the American public they were winning the war in Vietnam, but the war dragged on and on and death toll mounted. Enemy activity continued unabated despite our constant march to victory. This is the great significance of the Tet Offensive. It demonstrated conclusively the lies and distortions of the American leadership. We were not defeating the enemy as we had been led to believe.

This is the problem with what both candidates said yesterday, and with a lot of other things surrounding this war. As Americans, we must realize that this war on terror is a permanent state of affairs. But our leaders constantly paint a picture of a temporary condition that will some day come to an end in a glorious victory. The color-coded alert system has values indicating low threat. The implication of that is that someday there will be a low threat of terrorism. After 56 years, has Israel reached the point of low terrorist threat? Ask yesterday's victims. Using the word "heightened" to describe security at airports implies that it is temporary and will someday go back to the way it was. Airport security will never go back to the way it was, at least not with reasonably competent leadership. Victory in military confrontation with Al Qaeda or arrests of their operatives are portrayed as bringing us closer to a mythical victory. The president insists on saying, "make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win."

Long term, this risks the situation the nation experienced in the 60's, when the public was confronted with the image of an effective enemy even after being told for years they were being defeated. Let the dead in Beersheeba make us realize the kind of war we are in, and let us then be honest about it. This war will be unending, and while we may win the battle, victory simply does not have meaning.