Great article, if somewhat slow going. There is a huge myth loose in the land. Namely that Americans can be made secure against bad people who want to destroy us. The 9/11 attack succeeded all too well; it terrorized Americans, who remain so today thanks to the continuing scare tactics from our government. After 9/11, everyone wanted Bush to go out and kill something, which he did, even expanding it into Iraq. But properly armed, one person—silently, unobtrusively, with no danger of being caught—can destroy a city without warning. Democrats or Republicans, Americans must come to the realization that no one can provide real security against dedicated terrorism.

This is an opinion piece which discusses two books but in actuality argues for a national security policy drawn from positions of Democrats, party principles and courage to confront the hard questions of the world as it is. It is certainly not unbiased but it presents a persuasive case.

This is a very long and interesting review of national security in the last 40 years . It appears that both Republicans and Democrats have not provided good security, but the Republicans have more favorable positions. Now after the almost eight years of the Bush Administration, the Democrats may be able to provide national security. We can only hope someone does.

More a treatise on national security than a consideration of the two books in question, this review by Samantha Power provides a broad overview of national security issues that is worth reading. Never having been invaded or attacked broadside (Pearl Harbor and 9/11 notwithstanding), Americans seem not to appreciate national security in the way that most other nations do--just ask the Russians, the Chinese, or even the French, and they will respond that national security means not being taken over by another nation. In that light, all American presidents during the last 60 years, earn at least a "C" in national security--especially those who helped us avoid a nuclear halocaust during the Cold War. Power's sometimes disjointed ... More »

Although Samantha Power is a bit too "trigger-happy" for my taste when it comes to when military intervention is warranted, and then slow to say we'd do better to get out (based on her other writings and comments), this is a very thoughtful response to the stubborn mindset that seems to grip the uninformed -- that the Republican philosophy actually makes us safer.

This story merits careful reading and is of very high value. To me, one of the striking aspects of the American psyche is that grotesquely inflated "defense" spending is equated so often with patriotism, when it in fact is the direct opposite. Reagan doubled defense spending and continued to try to build a fantastically expensive 600 cpaital ship navy when it was clear the USSR was quickly reaching the point of collapse. Thanks in part to Dick Cheney, the dissolution of the only serious potential enemy of the US did not produce a peace dividend because he and his followers wanted to set up a virtual dictatorship of the world under their control. Even though Bill Clinton reined in military spending, the events of 9-11 allowed ... More »