Truespeak

In response to the London bombing, Italy is saying "buon giorno."

Italy plans to begin withdrawing some of its troops from Iraq in September, Premier Silvio Berlusconi said Friday.

Berlusconi, who was a strong supporter of President Bush on Iraq, sent 3,000 troops to the country after the ouster of Saddam Hussein to help rebuild the country. He had previously indicated he hoped a pullout could begin in September.

"We will begin withdrawing 300 men in the month of September," Berlusconi said at the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland. But he added the decision would depend on security conditions on the ground and could change.

Granted, this isn't terribly stunning news as the Italians have been hinting at this for a while now. But what is stunning to me is this quote right here.

"It's evident that after New York, Madrid and London, Italy represents the most probable next objective of the terrorists," he said. "The time has come to begin to think also about our house, and to use the same resources currently committed in Iraq to prevent and combat possible attacks on our territory."

Now if you ask me, this is just smart thinking. Almost a year ago, I applied the same rationale to this post:

I believe that there is a widespread misconception that most liberals do not support the war on terror. I have to admit that I don't think that this is a winnable war. I equate it to the war on drugs. It's a noble cause, but an unattainable goal. This does not mean that I am not in support of making our country safer. I'm all for that. I do not wish to see another 9/11. Ridding the world of terrorism would be a wonderful thing, right up there with world peace. However, the war in Iraq is not the answer.

President Bush has repeatedly called Iraq a "central front in the war on terror." I disagree. In my opinion, the central front in the war on terror is right here in America. Instead of spending $100 billion in Iraq to root out a WMD program that was virtually nonexistant and wasn't threatening anyone, why not spend that money here in America to help secure our borders, ports, nuclear facilities, water facilities, and airlines? 95% of all cargo that comes into our country's sea-ports goes unchecked. Securing our border with Mexico has been underfunded for years. We've been told repeatedly about the dangers of an attack on our nuclear power plants or about the ramifications of a chemical/biologocal attack on our nation's water supply yet most are unguarded. And it goes without saying that we are all aware of the dangers posed by hijacked airplanes, yet we are unable to fully staff each airport with qualified screeners and each airplane with an air marshall. Couldn't that $100 billion be used here at home to correct these issues?

That was over 800 dead soldiers and $100 billion ago and we're still no safer. I'm glad to see that someone is starting to wise up. I just wish we were following their lead. We are continuing to throw money at a problem that we created and we're doing so at the expense of our own security here at home. What could we do with a couple hundred billion dollars, you ask? Well, since you asked, here's what we could have done with just the first $144.4 billion.

Unfortunately, the current administration is hell-bent on "staying the course." Never mind that the course is actually making us less safe. I, like most people, had no problem with the military response in Afghanistan. That was a justified invasion and a necessary step to protecting ourselves. After that? Well, we know where that's gotten us.

I say, "Good for Italy." They're thinking about their own security. Something I wish we would do more often. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

Have a good weekend! I'll see you on Monday.