If there is such a thing as “the national mind,” the question is whether it has decided that the War on Terror is a real war or merely a passing inconvenience interfering with our comfortable style of life.

   Current polls show dissatisfaction with events in Iraq and the way the Bush administration is managing them. There is a strong strain of anti-war sentiment embedded in our culture that, early on, considered – and still considers – the World Trade Center disaster as a sort of payment for America’s sins. This crowd firmly believes that almost anything the Bush administration does is based on greed, imperialistic ambitions and political expediency. More than a few church leaders believe our current foreign entanglements are essentially immoral.

   The other side of this argument is that we are truly at war, albeit a new kind. No nation attacked us on 9/11. Instead we were attacked by a muddled ideology that combines radical Islamism with rabid anti-Americanism and fierce jealousy of much of Western culture. This noxious brew of hate lacks an agenda until it falls in the hands of power seekers using it as a weapon – i.e., Palestinians trying to destroy Israel, the Taliban seeking to rule Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein employing it to destabilize his neighbors.

   The only antidote to this is forceful action, either military or diplomatic. We had neither, and Europe even less, following the al Qaeda declaration of a jihad against the West in the early ‘90s. Then came the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. President Bush decided there was no option except freedom and democracy for Afghanistan and Iraq – and indeed for all of the Middle East. Few people remember today that he warned the struggle would be a long one, far beyond a two-term president’s tenure, and perhaps into the terms of one or two new presidents.

   Does the United States have the heart for this? Most Republicans believe that the president has made a good case for an idealistic crusade for democracy and freedom. A majority of Democrats apparently believe that it is all hypocrisy and political expediency. Many will tell you that the “war” and “crusade for freedom” are fraudulent, mere cover for a power grab by some sort of radical Christian right and evil conservatives who want to “turn back the clock” in some fashion.

   Judging from what Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has been saying, the “war” is unjust to begin with, mismanaged as well, and a quagmire that cannot be won and will result in an eventual humiliating cut-and-run ending. His is the most strident voice, but Democratic leaders in Congress have echoed the same themes. This appeals to the Democratic Party’s core constituency of peace activists who believe that anything that undermines the Bush administration and the administration’s war strategy is justified.

   Is this real peace idealism or is it hypocrisy – partisan politics masquerading as something morally superior?

   Dean’s antics suggest that it is ingrained in today’s Democratic psyche that any tough fight like this that costs lives and national treasure is “another Vietnam.” Congressional Democrats pay lip service to Americans fighting the war while suggesting at the same time that their sacrifices are essentially worthless.

   Presidential adviser Karl Rove pretty much put his finger on this very point – and got howls of protest. The reality is that the sacrifices are for our protection, our comfort. If the terrorists win in the Middle East it is only a matter of time before they are back at our door and capable of horrors dwarfing 9/11.