Since Vietnam, the Democrats have been the anti-war party, and nothing invites attack like weakness. So there is more reason for concern. But on the other hand, we’ve not been attacked since 9/11 and that establishes some momentum. Bush has set the bar for Obama. If Obama wants to be re-elected, he has to meet the standard. He can’t allow an attack either; he can’t undermine the war on terror. The buck stops with the President. He may not be as aggressive, or share the same long-term view as Bush, but he’d have a tough time being re-elected if anything related to a new attacked was traced to a change in the anti-terror policy.

ABM defense is more a long-term investment than the war on terror. But defense still needs long-term investment and vision…. Momentum dies; friction and hostile policy will be at work.

Russia has tested an ICBM by launching it into the Pacific. That reminds me of a test launch the old Soviet Union did into the Pacific. It was planned to land just beyond Hawaii, until the U.S. protested. The recent launch was said to be Russia’s first into the Pacific. So they’re distinguishing between old Russia and new Russia, but then again the new Russia is flying bombers with the old Red Star….. Power politics remains the same. And even The Dream of socialism remains, but Moscow’s not able to portray itself as the agent for bringing about worldwide socialism.