mml

There is really no simple answer to this question, which is why neither candiate for President has a difinitive plan. My personal opinion is that the "War on Terror" is much like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty". Both of those "wars" have been going on for many years, and there is no end in sight. This is not a real war, and like Bush said in a brief moment of clarity we can control it, reduce it but we will never truly win it.(Too bad he turned around the next day and said he was misunderstood. Kerry too pushes this line of BS)

If I were elected, I would work to ensure the complete funding of Homeland Security Measures, helping to decrease the likelihood of attack (better equipment, computers, border and port security etc...) and to help ensure first responders (Police, Fire, Hospitals, National Guard units etc...) are properly funded and trained.

Additionally, I would work to streamline and improve intelligence gathering both technology and human based, implementing much of the 9/11 Commission's reccomendations.

While I do not feel the Iraq war originally had anything to do with the "War on Terror", it certainly is a breeding ground now, so I would be forced to continue on in Iraq, helping to develop, train and finance a new military, police force, border patrol, intelligence branch etc... in order to create a stable government. We will need to work as quickly as possible towards legitimate elections, and it will be necessary to boost economic development within Iraq. I would work to smooth relations with the international community in hope(although rather slim hope) that we may get some form of assistance, financial, military.... I would be willing to give up large, exclusive U.S. reconstruction projects in order to get more international support.

It is also important to refocus on Afganistan where we do have Int'l support and assistance. We need to ensure that it does not slip back into chaos or even worse, back to the Taliban who are making a resurgence.

We also need to make a larger issue of Al-Qaida again. I would like to continue to aggressive pursuit of Al-Qaida operatives, but would like to see the capture of bin Laudin as a priority once again. He is a key figure for terrorists to rally around, and while he may become a martyr if killed, at least his charismatic leadership will be gone.

It is also truly important that we strengthen our policy on nuclear non-proliferation and ensure the security of exsisting nuclear weapons both here and abroad (particularly in Russia and other former Soviet republics). This includes working on solutions to the North Korean (who will sell anyone a missle) and Iranian nuclear development programs.

We must also be willing to use force when needed. I am not completely against a "preemptive" strike, but it must be done only when we are certain and there is an honest, impending threat. The invasion of Iraq is an embarrassment and only eats away at the valid points of the "Bush Doctrine". Covert operations, legal and police actions and cooperation with foreign governments are still the most effective tools against terrorism, but if that terrorism is or becomes "State Sponsored" as in Afganistan, and we cannot come to terms with that nation, we should strike to prevent attack on our citizens and soil.

There is no easy answer, and there are many areas I have skipped or missed. I believe in securing the homeland, increasing intelligence, expanding diplomacy and, like others have said "carrrying a damn, big stick".