Is This Blog On? version 2.0

I know I got into a lot of trouble when I compared our war-dead to highway fatalities, but
here is the same comparison made from a different perspective:

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the “Islamo-fascist” enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler’s implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.

Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.

The author’s point is that we are overreacting to the deaths that occurred on 9/11. That our “War and Terror” and the fear we have of “Islamo-Fascists” is overblown.

But, looked at from a different prespective, might the author admit that some have over-reacted regarding battle deaths? Honestly, I have no idea what this guy is advocating. I mean, is it that the war on terror is wrong because not enough people died on 9/11?

Not every adversary is an apocalyptic threat.

Not even when they threaten to use nuclear weapons against you? Not even when they vow to destroy “the Great Satan?”

h/t: Hot Air