" In the end, Bush's political gifts must make the difference. Like Franklin Roosevelt and other successful war presidents - and unlike, say, Lyndon Johnson - he must maintain his country's trust and continually renew its sense of purpose. And he must do so when the cause is not so clear, the going not so smooth, the threat not as discernible. " — John Aloysius Farrell, The Boston Globe, January 29, 2003

American policy since WWII has always been that the US be able to fight — and WIN! — two wars simultaneously. Lyndon Johnson tried to fight two and lost the War on Poverty, as well as setting the stage for losing the war in Vietnam. Ronald Reagan tried to fight a War on Drugs and the Cold War at the same time. He won one and lost one (though there is still considerable barroom argument that Reagan should get credit for a save rather than a win). George H.W. Bush continued the War on Drugs, losing ever more ground, and fought the Gulf War, whose results would have to be considered inconclusive at best.

The recent historical result of fighting wars on two-fronts, one foreign and one domestic, has been that America loses the one fought on our own soil. Among the reasons why the home-front has been lost have been the expenditure in money, in time and attention, and in political capital necessary to wage the foreign war.

Now we have a President who would fight a War on Terrorism and a War on Iraq. Most of us think the war overseas will be won with relative ease, though it may be extremely costly, especially of political capital. And so I worry terribly about the war at home, the war that is supposed to make the US safer and more secure. Do we have the resources to fight both wars and win them both?