To echo Matt Yglesias, the Obama administration really should use Osama bin Laden's death as an opportunity to end the "war on terror" as an organizing principle for American foreign policy. Here is James Fallows with more:
Signifying an end to a "global war" does not mean the end of a threat. America faces a daily threat from crime; for the foreseeable future Americans and others will face a continuing threat of terrorist attack; the entire world faces a threat that the thousands of nuclear warheads still in existence could destroy millions, through accidental or deliberate misuse. But we classify all those as threats, requiring our continued vigilance and best efforts to prevent them. Rather than as ongoing, open-ended wars with the consequent distortions that wars can impose on our values, institutions, and public lives.
This would be in line with what John Kerry presented in 2004, before he was excoriated for being "weak on terror":
When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.'' [Emphasis mine]
I, for one, think we should use this as an opportunity to vindicate John Kerry. He was right then, and he is right now.
