(Not) Hitting the Mark
I applaud the various agents who helped apprehend and scuttle the recent terrorist plot. The plan was startling, and like everyone else I'm happy they did their jobs well.
A recent editorial from the The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/opinion/11fri1.html) does a good job of exposing the crass political opportunism about this event though. As we've heard repeated just as much as we had heard that Iraq had WMDs and how Saddam had supported Al Qaeda, now we have politicians once again using the recent events as a way to paint Democrats as somehow implicitly supporting terrorists or being "soft on defense."
That's just fucking pathetic and unethical. And it reflects the Right's use of the "stab-in-the-back narrative," the myth of American betrayal detailed in this essay by Kevin Baker: http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html.
Yep, that's right Tricky Dick, the Democrats really are encouraging "Al Qaeda types" by wanting to seriously question the plausible effects of American intervention in the Middle East or wanting to set a timetable for withdrawal. And, Liebs, you're desperate.
Give me a break.
As a number of foreign policy analysts of the liberal, middle of the road, and conservative persuasions tell us, the Iraq War, our tacit okaying of Israel's actions in Lebanon, and our reticence in helping get a cease fire done (whether short term while Condi tickles the ivories or truly "sustainable") are simply enraging more folks who are susceptible to hate America/Americans.
And this scuttled plot brings up some many larger issues that I'm sure will be discussed on every talk show on the various cable networks. If Al Qaeda directed it, how? What are/aren't we doing in Pakistan? And why haven't we found these people? If it wasn't directed by Al Qaeda, I have to agree to a number of commentators who say that makes it even worse. That would mean that the terrorist networks are even more loosely affiliated and hard to get to while being united around a common theme: Kill Westerners or Those Who Don't Share Our Beliefs.
I'm neither a proponent of closing off our country to the rest of the world nor shutting down serious but Constitutionally legal intelligence gathering to protect ourselves. But there has to be a better foreign policy than one based on sports metaphors ("the best defense is a good offense") or Biblical hokum ("it's an eternal struggle between good and evil") or some screwed up reverse domino theory ("If Iraq becomes a democracy, then democracy will spread to the rest of the Middle East and create peace.").
Pre-emptive war has taken us to a place far worse than we would have been without it. It's certainly not the root cause of terrorism as we now know it, which would be fundamentalism and lack of respect for humans and their diverse viewpoints/beliefs, but Iraq and other recent events haven't helped matters.
And Dubya calling them "Islamic fascists" is not helping. The term fascism usually assumes that there is a nation-state, but terrorists don't have one.
Terrorists' lack of nation-state (one distinct place) is the main part of the serious challenge before us. I'm just glad there are people catching 'em.
posted by Quintilian B. Nasty @ 10:49 PM
3 Comments:
If we caught Osama, then Bush and Blair would have a tougher go of pushing the martial law that's being foisted upon us.
People should probably begin to realize that the threat of terror is never going to leave us. Violence is a persuasive force. As long as anyone can use it, we will always be threatened.
Democrats are not in a position to beat the Republicans at the game of providing the perception of safety. What is needed is a movement that prioritizes fundamental civil liberties and recognizes the fact of our vulnerability.
A world of scarcity does not make it likely that we'll make many new friends in the world.
anonymous,
I agree with you on the fact that "terror is never going to leave us." The world is getting increasingly smaller, and, as you say, we not likely to "make many new friends in the world."
I have to mildly disagree with your statement about beating the GOP on the national security front. If the sides were flipped and Gore was in charge during 9/11, I have very little doubt that Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter, and others would be trotting out a line of argument that the terrorist attacks happened on the Democrats' "watch." Why not take that line of attack with some facts to support such assertions against Republicans?
There is, for whatever misguided reasons, the perception that Democrats cannot provide strong enough national security as opposed to the GOP. What Dems need to do, if they want to change this perception, is to take it head on, explaining how we haven't been safer (consider the still lax security at chemical plants, water purification facilities, and many of our borders) under the leadership of Republicans.
And where's the proof for such an assertion that the Dems are weak on national defense? That perception is pounded into the public's brain repeatedly by Republican politicans while Dems hem-haw around national security with obtuse explanations (see the Gore and Kerry campaigns) that sound almost hucksterish and lack gravitas.
The comedian Lewis Black said it effectively when he observed, "The Republican party is the party of bad ideas, and the Democratic party is the party of no ideas."
The Democratic candidates need to put together a significantly different "seeable" plan about national security and simply point out that the GOP hasn't kept Americans all that safe.
Call it the "blame game" or whatever you want, but why shouldn't the Dems use the GOP's own political tactics against them?
First off, I agree with every thing you say. I must say that while I cannot stand the man, I have to admit that I was actually kind of "glad" that Bush was in office on 9-11. It was immediately apparent that day that our culture and political dynamics would never be the same. It was difficult to come to terms with many of my own assumptions, and I knew that had Gore been in office, the discourse would have been dominated by republican b.s. that it would not have happened had Gore been in office. The pettiness would have started right away, and with Bush in office, we at least didn't have to hear it.
I agree the dems should be pounding the gop on safety issues. I just don't think they'll likely change the perception--it's been with us for decades.
I would like to see a dynamic approach more tailored to what I see is a reorientation in our view of our place in the world. Emphasize national security but only in the context of preserving culture and liberty. FISA won't save us; DHS won't save us, either. But we are at a point were the public is catching on to the Orwellian nonsense propagated by the GOP, and dems are at least closer to a point where they can effectively articulate a balance. (and they better hurry because if we get hit again, FISA and its kin ain't got a chance).
Post a Comment
<< Home