In most elections, there is a whole slate of issues. Usually, there are a few that are significantly more important to most people than the others. The November 2006 midterm is like many recent elections in that there is one huge issue that pales in comparison to most others, but in at one very important way, it’s not that critical.

Of course, that one issue is the War on Terror. One side believes that it is essential that the present path continue while the other side is against anything that President Bush is for. Arguing the merits of either side is fodder for another time. My point here is that, to both sides, it seems pretty important. And it is - up to a point. Which side gets its way, will have a great deal of impact on how the war is executed, whether brave soldiers died in vein and on how the terrorists conduct their campaign.

Al-Qaeda has stated that one of their goals is to kill as many Americans as possible. They have already demonstrated that they are willing to work consistently over many years in order to achieve their goals. We have put a significant dent their operations, but we have not eliminated the threat. This means that unless we stop them, they will be back, and likely in a big way; So, it’s like the salesman said, “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” In one sense, this election is only about whether we pay now or later.

As difficult as it is to understand the Democratic attitude of appeasement, it is completely unimaginable that a critical mass of voters would continue to hold that attitude after another 10,000 or more civilians are killed. So the War on Terror will be fought to its conclusion because the only other choice is annihilation. It may be interrupted, and as a result, more people may die, but it will be fought.

This election is not about whether we fight. It is only about when we fight and to what extent we take advantage of the existing momentum.

Bert Bruner