'The Best Person for the Job'

We've already had our primary in Michigan, but this Tuesday's primaries are critical for the nation's future.

The following excellent article by Walid Phares summarizes the stakes in the presidential race as it affects our war with global jihadism. Though I was never going to vote for a Democrat, I do number myself among those who believe that John McCain is in reality an "anti-conservative," and I would only consider voting for him to forestall the horrors of a Clinton or Obama presidency.

The Best Person for the Job
Walid Phares, PhD

When it comes to US Presidential elections, the post 9/11 era has changed the rules of engagement for national security experts and for those who can read the Jihadists’ minds. While the counterterrorism community should let the voters chose their chief executive first, then later offer expert advice to the President, unfortunately, the world has changed.

Indeed, since the 9/11 and the engagement of the nation in the war with Jihadism, the selection of the US President can fundamentally affect the very survival of the American people. Whoever occupies the White House in 2009, for the next 4 to 8 years will have to make decisions that will have cataclysmic consequences on the physical security and the freedoms of 300 million citizens in this country, and eventually on the free world as a whole.

The leader of the most powerful democracy in the world has to be able to know who the enemy is so that all resources are put into action against it. Without this, the next US President could cause a major disaster to happen to this nation. American voters cannot afford to install a man or a woman who can’t identify and define the enemy. If you can’t see an enemy, you simply cannot defeat it.

The 2004 Presidential elections took place in quasi-popular ignorance. The sitting -- and fighting -- President was reelected by the basic instincts of Americans, but not by enlightened citizens. An overwhelming majority of voters was not fully informed as to the real stakes. The country was told that the war in Iraq was wrong, and about half of the country believed it. They were also told there was no war on terror, but worse, they were never told who the enemy was or what it really wanted.

Phares goes on to provide a fair account of the views on the war on terror of both leading candidates, from either party. He finally comes down for Mitt Romney, based on Romney's most accurate identification of our enemy as Global Jihadism.

Please read the entire article here. Let us know what you think.