Phil Goldsmith has held senior positions in a broad spectrum of fields including law, journalism, business and government. Most recently he was managing director of the City of Philadelphia.
He is now a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, writing every other Wednesday and is a principal in GoldsmithKahn Associates, a public issues management consulting firm.
I have had two major questions about the war on terroism and the war in Iraq (notice I have identified them as two separate wars)
1. When will we know that Iraq will be able to fend for itself and we can bring the troops home?
2. When will we know that the war on terrorism is over?
I asked Richard Clark, the former anti-terrorism czar, the second question when I found myself sitting at his table during a dinner at the Free Library a couple of years ago. His response, "That's a good question." Still, there was no answer.
Usually wars are over when one side surrenders but since the terrorism movement is dispersed, surrender doesn't seem like a normal ending. It's an important question because many of our laws and policies that infringe on our normal liberties or procedures are justified or explained by the fact that we are engaged in a war on terrorism. If these changes to our normal democratic policies are not going to become permanent, then it's important to define when the war will be over.
While I haven't heard a good answer to my second question, I did figure out the answer to the first question i.e., When will we know that Iraq will be able to fend for itself?
The answer dawned on me this morning when I heard that President Bush took a very secret trip to Iraq.
When the President is able or willing to announce in public, "Ladies and gentlemen, I am scheduled to visit Iraq on (such and such a date)" and need not travel in stealth, then we can assume that the danger in Iraq has ended and/or Iraq now has the ability to protect its citizens and important visitors.
