An IQ test for security

Re “An unfair litmus test,” editorial, Nov. 24

Your editorial says that early opposition to the Iraq war should not be a litmus test for appointees in the Obama administration. However, as a test for national security competence and understanding, a nominee’s stance on the Iraq war is telling.

You mention the litany of excuses one might have for having gone along with the Bush administration in its rush to war, but they all miss the point: This war was an avoidable mistake.

More than that, as a response to the threat that reared its head on 9/11, invading Iraq was totally irrational. Muslim countries have wealth and power from oil revenue, and they use it to radicalize their people and avoid accountability. Madrasas are suicide-bomber factories financed with oil dollars.

It is nothing short of insane to think that we could invade one country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and democracy would spread like a virus, magically transforming a region that has been an intractable mess for centuries. Now, predictably, Iran is stronger and its proxies around the Middle East are ascendant.

The upshot of your editorial seems to be that pointing out a nominee’s record of gross malpractice is “gotcha” nonsense. I couldn’t disagree more. Having supported the invasion of Iraq is damning evidence that a nominee does not understand the national security threats arrayed against us.

This test is, and should be, a national security IQ test, to which there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

Branden Frankel

Irvine