What war?

Clint Eastwood's RNC Convention speech was was memorable...wasn't it? 

Memorable because he was yelling at a chair...and sort..of....rambling. Memorable because he mentioned Afghanistan and Iraq.

Memorable because so far as I can tell, neither the prospective POTUS or VPOTUS spoke about national policy that affects our men and women in harms way.

But I suppose when Bush, Obama and Romney all generally share the same policy on the 'war on terror'....why bother, right?

Bill Kristol agrees:

The United States has some 68,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. Over two thousand Americans have died in the more than ten years of that war, a war Mitt Romney has supported. Yet in his speech accepting his party's nomination to be commander in chief, Mitt Romney said not a word about the war in Afghanistan. Nor did he utter a word of appreciation to the troops fighting there, or to those who have fought there. Nor for that matter were there thanks for those who fought in Iraq, another conflict that went unmentioned.

Leave aside the question of the political wisdom of Romney's silence, and the opportunities it opens up for President Obama next week. What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing even to mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we're fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it? Has it ever happened that we've been at war and a presidential nominee has ignored, in this kind of major and formal speech, the war and our warriors?