Obama the leftist and his Marxist sidekicks, Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates...

You didn't actually listen to anything the guy had to say about terrorism, did you. Or, perhaps you listened but because of his sensible opposition to the war in Iraq, you refuse to take anything he says seriously. Whatever.

Right on cue hyperbolist. You never fail to disappoint.

Leftists (including Obama & friends) need to be educated to understand that international Islamist terrorism is a unique, serious and deadly problem much like a metastatic cancer.

Just how seriously? You mean like to ignore the cancer?

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you. "

I turn my desktop on at 9 o'clock EST, MPR...?

That is the folly of the liberal left. They think the terrorists want to kill republicans. I will have to wait and see if BHO can raise my comfort level as far as my families safety. Right now, I do not feel secure in his ability. I have felt safe for 7 years now, but that is going.

Hyper, you have a mess in your own country. Another power play by the lefties I see? ww

Confusing the activities of sophisticated networks of well-funded international Islamist terrorists with the cowardly acts of homegrown sociopathic murders is as dangerous as misdiagnosing a deadly cancer. No problem can be effectively addressed if it is not properly identified.

First of all, you have to consider the source of this story. Rosa Brooks is an echo chamber of the lemming left. I'm surprised she didn't find a way to squeeze in global warming as a direct cause. Mz. Brooks would prefer to lump Islamist terrorism with all the other ills of psychopaths when Islamist terrorist have a defined mission and agenda. B+ for effort----F- for reasoning.

Fine, let Rosa Brooks, et. al, go over in the corner and have their tantrums,while the adults go about administering the country.

At least it keeps them out of the way.

"Power play"? You mean... constitutionally valid challenge of a minority government's attempt to pass a budget without a majority of parliamentary support? You obviously don't know anything about parliamentary democracy so don't pretend otherwise, Willie. It works in many countries, including Israel, Italy, and my own. I don't expect you to read up on it, though I would hope you would refrain from making judgement when you have zero knowledge of the subject at hand (which you brought up for some reason beknownst only to yourself). We had a coalition government under Borden during World War I. Worked fine. Harper has a month to get his shit together and enlist another party's support or his government will be brought down by the mechanisms of representative democracy.

As for you feeling less safe, that makes you seem stupid for two reasons: 1) Bush Jr. is still the President (though it might not seem like it); and 2) Obama will have the same SecDef as Bush Jr.. So those would be the reasons your fear just seems like an overall extension of your general inability to think.

Well, it worked for Clinton..........right up until 9/11/01

"[terrorists] can be neutralized with "sober" law enforcement tactics. Military conflicts are unnecessary and, in fact, probably make things worse by "effectively lump[ing] together many different organizations motivated by many different grievances."

not only is that statement 100% accurate, but every facet of bu$hs boneheaded iraq policies demonstrates the truth of it

large-scale conventional warfare might be a better fit in afghanistan, or may even become a necessity in pakistan if things continue their downward spiral there, but of course the very possibility of mounting any big manoevers has been blocked by the iraq debacle

I'm not sure the "Guest Poster" was reading the same column that I was. Because, even if you stretch, it's hard to twist the points Brooks was making into the bullet points that this dude was pretending she said.
For instance, someone show me a quote from the article that could be construed as "appeasement is the ultimate solution."

Hyper, is it your time of the month or what? Way overreactionary to the dig of your country's infighting. Well, back at you. You seem to think you understand democracy/republic laws but you have revealed YOUR lack of knowledge in both.

As far as the safe feeling, Gates as nada, nothing to do with it. It is the CIA operatives and interrogators that are going to leave the services because of their fear of being prosecuted wrongly for doing their job. That is where the gold mine of information comes from that keeps us safe. You nit wit. Get a handle on how things are. Even though you live in canada where really no one cares to do you harm because simply, no one cares that your there. We on the other hand are a mecca for millions who want to live here and countries resent us for it.

Now, go learn something. Read a book. ww

I understand how your democracy works, Willie. You might disagree with my opinion as to the direction your country ought to take, but you have never had cause to correct my understanding of the mechanisms of your government. So nice try.

The rest of your comment (CIA agents quitting en masse because Obama is going to out them to Osama bin Laden!!!--seriously, what?!!) is meaningless as it is grounded only in the opinion of a Bushy tailed 24 percenter. Have a good weekend, try not to sprain your ankle jumping at shadows, you inarticulate 'fraidy cat.

What a shame. It's hard to argue with the effectiveness and permanence of killing terrorists, but the libtards will find a way.

piso - the only thing bu$h has done effectively in iraq is create terrorists, not kill them

other instances where we have managed to knock out ranking al quaeda/taliban operatives are happening from just the types of measures that are being denigrated here, and not from large-scale military assaults

its neocon lunacy to attack guerilla style extremism by invading a whole country, and the wrong one at that. now thats totally nuts

I do not feel secure in his ability. I have felt safe for 7 years now, but that is going.

Man, you're a wuss. Do you look at your President as your daddy, needing to comfort you and make you feel safe? Get a backbone.

I was in Manhattan during 9/11 and if anyone has a direct connection to true fear or lack of safety, it's the large group of us who were in the city that day and actually saw terrorism first hand. Like most New Yorkers, I've had to live with this kind of thing for 8 years (actually longer, for those of us who remember the earlier attack).

And guess what? I would NEVER have trusted Bush with my safety - or worse, support him because I'm some sort of scaredy-cat who can't think straight due to my fear. The man has been a disaster as a president and for any smart person, he's created more threat of terrorism, not less.

Stop being a little mouse and stop looking at the world with a coward's eyes.

pea[brain]3000 - "piso - the only thing bu$h has done effectively in iraq is create terrorists, not kill them."

Can you place a number on that? Just how many terrorists are there now as opposed to say, Dec, 2002?

And it goes without saying to make the assertion there has been no progress in Iraq as compared to Saddam's reign of terror is shear folly.

But folly is your stock-in-trade.

Progress in Iraq since December, 2002. Iraq had never had one incident of a suicide bomber until... our invasion in March, 2003, so I suppose that is a dubious sign of progress.

marc - its the pentagon that says al qaeda and the taliban have grown significantly since the iraq invasion

spending $2 trillion on a very bloody war to gain us nothing? not a great idea

are you ever right about stuff?

*palin 2012 - let freedumb ring*

"I would NEVER have trusted Bush with my safety"

"he's created more threat of terrorism, not less."

Obama now President, hmmm living in Manhattan,---
ya OK, good LUCK with all that (LESS) of a threat.

knightbrigade - your post made no sense

Crickmore,
And since Jan 2003, no Iraqi civilians have been fed feet first into shredders while alive or been made to watch their wives and children get raped by their own government because they got on the wrong side of the Hussein regime.

There were terrorists in Iraq before Dec 2002, even if you and CNN choose to call them by another name.

Coming from YOU peabody3000 -- that's a GOOD thing.
That means normal people GET it!

pea[brain]3000 - That wasn't what I asked for, gimme a number. You claimed there were more, surely you can tag a number on that assertion.

The author responds...
Bruce Henry wants to know where Rosa Brooks alluded to appeasement. Read the last paragraph. Brooks outlines her preferred approach to terrorism.
Step 1: Resist the temptation to lash out indiscriminately.
Step 2: Improve intelligence (Brilliant insight, by the way.)
Step 3: Disrupt specific terrorist organizations (Interesting that she didn't use the other "D" word: destroy.)
Step 4: Address specific grievances. Pardon me for saying this, but I'm not the least bit interested in addressing the grievances of the "death to America" crowd. If addressing the grievances of terrorists in order to "reduce terrorism" isn't appeasement, nothing is.

marc - who cares what you asked for. the pentagon says these terrorist groups have grown significantly since the iraq debacle. that is what renders your latest points worthless

although it IS interesting to watch what manoevers you take to avoid the inconvenient reality.......

*palin 2012 - let freedumb ring*

It's the right wing ideologues that do not understand terrorism.

Bush fell right into Bin Ladens trap. Bush actions have resulted in an increase in terrorists ability to recruit and have created a training ground for foreign terrorist to learn bomb making skills in Iraq. Foreign terrorisit have poured into Iraq and are now exporting their bomb making skills to other countries.

If you don't believe this then google:

National Intelligence Estimate Iraq war breeding more terrorists

And since Jan 2003, no Iraqi civilians have been fed feet first into shredders while alive or been made to watch their wives and children get raped by their own government because they got on the wrong side of the Hussein regime.

Yea, now you have Iraqi against Iraqi against non-Iraqi performing atrocities similar to what was done under Saddam regime. Which is better?

What degree of ethnic cleansing occured before the Iraq war?

pea[brain]3000 - "marc - who cares what you asked for."

Obviously not you, and yes again.... I got just what I expected - nothing but childish BS.

You could care less about anyone or anything that doesn't precisely remain in lockstep with your beliefs or ideas.

You Avoid and obfuscate any and every question asked of you no matter how clear and concise it may be.

"Jonny, did you take the last cookie?"

"No mommy!" ( as crumbs fall from pea[brain]3000s lips)

Smiles, you are either too young to remember or too ignorant to care, if not both.
Google al-Anfal, Dujai and Marsh Arabs.
What I mentioned is well known, but how about some links to the current atrocities?

Jason, the first three steps you mention do not in any way constitute "appeasement." Not lashing out indiscriminately, for instance, is not the same as not responding at all.
As to the 4th step, let me say that I too am uninterested in kowtowing to anger about cartoons or any such nonsense. But if you are suggesting that the Muslim world has nothing to bitch about, you are simply wrong. Are all their complaints justified? Of course not. Are some? Yes, especially from their point of view. The phrase "address specific grievances" cannot be translated into "bow to every demand of radical jihadis" no matter how hard you try to squeeze it into your straw-man argument.