PROMISES, PROMISES

Lieutenant-Colonel Steve Russell, describing the U.S. Army's relationship to Iraqi civilians in Tikrit:

What we've tried to is be honest with them. We don't promise them anything that we can't give them. We don't tell them anything that we know is false. I think over time this has built a trust, where we say, if we're going to do something or if we are going to deliver something, then we do. (from NPR's Morning Edition today, here)

Title of new book by Richard Perle and David Frum proposing super-duper, all-encompassing anti-terrorism policies:

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror

Admittedly, I'm judging a book by its title, but this title is a real whopper.

The charitable version: Perle and Frum should fire their publicist and editor (if they're responsible for the book's title). The uncharitable version: our leaders (or leaders-wannabe) in the U.S. aren't being as straight with us as our army tries to be with Iraqi civilians. Not good.

There will be no "end to evil." Anyone who even hints at such an end is really talking about the End Times, when the Lord returns to earth in a triumphant, all-humanity-transcending blaze of power and glory. But only prophets and angels may confidently make such predictions. Perle and Frum are neither.

There will not be "victory" in the "war on terrorism" any more than there will be victory in the "war on crime." We may smash al-Qaeda, to be sure, but -- without apologies to President Bush -- "make no mistake": that will not represent a victory in the war on terrorism any more than incarcerating your neighborhood cocaine kingpin (or queenpin) would represent victory as such in the war on crime in your neighborhood. Perle and Frum are being irresponsible here and they should know it.

I hope at least that the book is better than the title. I'll form my judgment on this question when I find a copy of the book in a used book store somewhere.

Since on the All Things Considered story linked above, David Frum argued that it was absolutely essential that Bush get reelected in order for the plans in the book to be carried out, I'm left wondering whether the title is as unintentionally stupid as it sounds.

MORE: Not saying that smashing al-Qaeda wouldn't be good. Just saying that it won't constitute "winning" the "war on terror." There's a yawning, cavernously important difference here: so important that you could fall into it and still be falling when you wake up in the morning, after falling all night and even the night before.