Joseph Kearns Goodwin (who, I believe, is the son of historian Doris Kearns Goodwin) writes this must-read piece in today's Boston Globe.

AMERICA is not at war. To be sure, there are fierce battles in Afghanistan and Iraq where American soldiers are dying day after day. Yet, while our troops and their families have seen their lives altered in fundamental ways, the average American has been asked to sacrifice almost nothing. We read the papers, watch the news, worry about the disintegrating situation, then, except for the inconvenience at the airports, go about our daily lives in much the same manner as we did in the first summer of the 21st century.

A critical conflict, characterized by the Bush administration as the most important in generations, is being waged by a tiny fraction of our population -- the men and women in our armed forces, plus a small number of civilian agencies, together totaling less than 1 percent of our citizenry.

Amen, brother. And why is this the case?

After 9/11, I enlisted in the Army, having graduated from Harvard College the previous June. In the wake of that terrible day, I felt called upon to protect our nation and way of life. During my four years of duty, including a year of combat in Iraq, I met others who had made the same decision. I agree with Donald Rumsfeld, the former secretary of defense, that you must "go to war with the army you have," but I cannot understand why a greater effort was not made to enlarge that army. Had an effort been made to recruit more volunteers in the days and months after 9/11, I am confident that tens of thousands would have answered the call and that our Army today would not be stretched so thin. That call never came.

That call never came. This is why George W, Bush will be seen by history like another Texan who became President, Lyndon Johnson, as a monumental failure. When confronted by the horror of 9/11, George W. Bush had the option of responding to it as a criminal matter, or as an act of war. He chose (I think correctly) to treat it as an act of war and then, in an almost criminal fashion, failed to rouse the country to a war footing. He failed to call upon Congress to declare war against Al Qaeda, and then the Taliban when they refused to turn over Osama bin Laden. He failed to call upon Congress to expand the military, and then call for volunteers (or re-instate the draft, whichever course the Pentagon's military experts thought best to achieve the desired goals). He failed to call upon the American people's resolve to change their energy consumption habits to move toward weening the U.S. off foreign oil. Even if you set aside the politically disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq (and, I would argue, it wouldn't have been as politically disastrous if the nation had already been mobilized for war against the Islamist fanatics and, by extension, their potential patrons and supporters among the dictators and mullahs who rule much of the Middle East), the failure to mobilize the country for war has put us on the brink of defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, not militarily, but politically which, in the end, is a distinction without a difference.

Here is the latest report from Iraq, courtesy of the Weekly Standard. There is good news within, including the fact that the Sunni tribes of Anbar Province have turned against Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, it won't make a difference politically here in America.

Amir Taheri says the dictators in the Middle East hate America, but love Nancy.

This column in the NY Sun is also about Nancy's trip, as well as the British hostages, who face questions about their behavior by some of the folks back home. Walid Phares thinks the release of the hostages was done so quickly because the PR guys advising the Iranian regime realized that they were not achieving their goals. Phares thinks the original plan was to hold them until Christmas. Geoffrey Wheatcroft thinks the Prime Minister botched the job. Charles Krauthammer thinks the whole sorry mess stands as a humiliation for Britain, and for Europe.