This article originally appears in The American Thinker
Every once and a while over the last few years, I have come very close to saying to hell with it and tossing George Bush and the Republicans over the side. That’s when the left comes to Bush’s rescue and proves all over again why even allowing them to get a whiff of regaining power is extremely hazardous to the collective health of the west not to mention the personal safety and well-being of hundreds of millions of people.
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
The problem with liberals isn’t only Bush Derangement Syndrome. If that were the case, they would be easy to dismiss. The ragamuffins who mindlessly mouth their hatred of all things Bush and the intellectual dilettantes who enable them have become caricatures, cardboard cutouts of a political opposition. They are as relevant to the political debate in America as a flight of quacking ducks.
The real problem with serious leftist critiques of the Administration is that they actually get some things right – but start from the cockeyed premise that America’s response to 9/11 has made things worse.
I sympathize with some of these critiques on a couple of levels. The choices made by the Bush Administration have indeed sharpened sectarian tensions between Shias and Sunnis in the Middle East, provided fodder for radical Islamists to preach their vision of Holy War against the “Crusaders,” given Iran an opening to acquire influence in the region, and threatened the stability of the corrupt, autocratic regimes who are sitting on top of about 20% of the world’s oil.
All this may be true to one degree or another. The problem with these critiques is that they fail utterly and completely to address in any sane or rational way what else could have been done in response to 9/11.
By sane or rational, I’m talking about the curiously myopic notion advanced by liberals that if only we had done exactly the same things to prevent terrorism after 9/11 as we had done before, none of the problems brought about by going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq would have happened. The belief by the left that the Clinton/Albright law enforcement approach – treating terrorists as criminals – could have been sustained in the face of Bin Laden’s massive success on 9/11 shows that liberals have learned absolutely nothing from that event and indeed, continue to downplay its significance or ignore it altogether.
For example,to say that Iraq was an “elective” war is correct. But by struggling to effectively refute the idea that our liberation of Iraq was the next logical step in the war against the Islamic radicals, their criticism only points to the overarching problem with all serious liberal analyses of the War on Terror; either 9/11 for all intents and purposes didn’t happen or we have “overreacted” to that seminal event.
This is the “We are doing exactly what Osama wants†critique which may be satisfying on a political level in that it makes for an excellent-sounding riposte to Administration arguments. But deluded enemies often wish for disastrous confrontations. Think of the Japanese militarists who pushed for a knockout blow with the Pearl Harbor attack. They wanted war, but they didn’t suspect our strength of resolve.
Osama’s learning the truth of the old infidel saw: be careful what you wish for.
By any yardstick, Bin Laden has been hurt and hurt badly over the last 4 years. His ranks have been thinned considerably. His financial resources have been targeted relentlessly (one of the most underreported successes of the war). His operatives have been killed or captured in dozens of countries. According to recent polls, his popularity has waned considerably throughout the Muslim world. The fact that he himself is still alive and kicking (we think) is almost irrelevant. I say almost because obviously, killing or capturing the maniac would be a victory of sorts. Whether our liberal friends would recognize it as such is doubtful even though they themselves, by their criticism of the Administration for not capturing him, have set the destruction of Bin Laden as a major benchmark in judging the success of the war.
But beyond what we’ve done to him, are we really doing what Bin Laden “wants” or are we doing what he predicted would happen?
The proof is in the pudding. As a terrorist, Bin Laden may be a mastermind. But as a strategic planner, he is an utter failure. While predicting some of the reactions in the Middle East to American countermeasures against terror, he failed to see a host of other, more detrimental outcomes which are in the process of making his dream of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate less probable and in fact, a pipe dream.
While Bin Laden foresaw the overthrow of the old order in the Middle East as a result of American policies, the forces at work to affect change are not of his making or choosing. In fact,they are the antithesis of of what he desired. Even with an ascendant Hamas on the West Bank and a powerful Hizballah in Lebanon, radical Islamists are being either contained or defeated elsewhere in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt, and even Syria. And the admittedly dangerous situations in Iraq and Lebanon – where sectarianism threatens the tiny steps made toward democracy – nevertheless ignores the huge opportunity to deal Bin Laden’s dreams a death blow from which he could not possibly recover.
Where the left correctly sees chaos and confusion, there are also tidal historical forces at work that regardless of what kind of governments emerge in Iraq and a Lebanon, are going to change the face of the Middle East to the detriment of Bin Laden and his plans. In the short term, he may gain from the violence and despair wrought by both the resistance of the old order and his al Qaeda minions. But in the end, he loses due to either the emergence of a new kind of Arab nationalism friendly to democracy and democratic countries or a new kind of hybrid government with a justice system based mostly on Sharia law but also containing elements of western democracy like freedom of the press and tolerance for secular political parties.
In the end, Bin Laden may indeed have “wanted” the kind of response from America to 9/11 but I doubt very much he’s sitting in his cave gloating.
Don’t tell that to Simon Jenkins of the Times Online. Jenkins has written a scathing critique of the Bush/Blair Axis of Evil. And while making some salient points (many of which I outline above), Jenkins analysis suffers from a breathtaking naivete that more than 4 years after 9/11 sounds almost quaint in its old-fashioned, ostrich-like tendency to belittle the impact of 9/11 as well as criticize the American response to it:
On any objective measure, terrorism in the West is a trivial crime. True, New York and London saw outrages in 2001 and 2005 respectively. Both were the outcome of sloppy intelligence. Neither has been repeated, though of course they may be. Policing has improved and probably averted other attacks. But incidents genuinely attributable to Al-Qaeda rather than domestic grievances are comparable to the IRA and pro-Palestinian campaigns. Vigilance is important but only those with money in security have an interest in presenting Bin Laden as a cosmic threat.Indeed if ever there were a case for collective restraint it is in response to terrorism. The word refers to a technique, usually a bomb, not an ideology. A bombing is an anarchic gesture calling for police and medical services. It becomes a political weapon only if publicised and answered with hysteria. A killing is so staged as to cause over-reaction, violent response, mass arrests and a decay of civilised values. Bin Laden’s intention in 2001 was to portray the West as scared, emotionally vulnerable, over-reactive, decadent and careless of liberal values. The West has done its damnedest to prove him right.
Every liberal canard about the War on Terror is contained in those two paragraphs. Despite the rest of Mr. Jenkins’ article which accurately sums up many of the problems engendered by our response to 9/11 (sans his statements about “latent authoritarianism” in democratic leaders), his only alternatives – “restraint” and “policing” – precisely proves my point: That the left has learned nothing from 9/11 and that following the lead of Jenkins and others of his ideological ilk would be extraordinarily dangerous.
For at bottom, the “alternative strategy” being pushed by Jenkins and most of those on the left is one of reaction – waiting for the terrorists to strike before committing ourselves to countering them. In an era where weapons of mass destruction are becoming more widespread and easier to manufacture and/or acquire, this policy is not only suicidal, but morally reprehensible. It condemns hundreds perhaps thousands of innocent people to death all in the name of a simpering kind of internationalism, a belief that most countries are on the same page when it comes to combating terrorism.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many countries – Russia and China come to mind immediately – that would not be averse to seeing a catastrophic attack on America. Mr. Jenkins and his reactive strategy would make such an attack more likely by several degrees of magnitude. I daresay that Beijing especially wouldn’t mind seeing America severely weakened as it would probably mean affecting our ability to block their designs on Taiwan and establishing economic hegemony over the rest of East Asia.
September 11, 2001 has become a date that marks a great divide in American politics. The fact that we are arguing about its significance more than 4 years later should not be surprising given the polarization of our politics. But what is surprising is that the only conclusion the left seems to have drawn from that awful day is that everything the Administration has done after it has been wrong headed and only made the situation worse.
That’s not much of a critique. But given the paucity of ideas coming from liberals about how to stop the terrorists from destroying us, maybe it shouldn’t really surprise us after all.
1:08 pm
Rick,
While I agree with you that Jenkins comments contained in those two paragraphs are foolish, you are mistaken to paint the entire left and/or liberals with that brush. Americans (liberal, moderate and conservative) accepted that 9/11 was the the great attack that would raise this slumbering giant to action. Bush responded quickly to this assault as every American (liberal, moderate and conservative) knew he should and that is why he was supported at record levels for doing so. The reason that liberals have looked at the Clinton adminstration’s policies on terrorism as successful is that they had prevented numerous attacks, but from this administration we only see actions that lead to worse and worse outcomes. I am not saying that the idea of relentless attacking this enemy is bad. I think it is very good as do most of my liberal friends, but it must be done efficiently and intelligently, which is exactly what this administration has failed to do. George Bush’s decision to go to Iraq is what has led to some, mind you some, liberals adopting the Clinton adminstration’s policy of enhancing domestic security, while treating terrorism as just another crime (this policy does include prevention as well as response, which most conservatives have ignored when they discuss Clinton’s policies on terrorism). We assaulted a nation that had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. It would have been like FDR advocating opening a front on Brazil during WWII. Was Brazil friendly with Germany? Yes, but Brazil was not the enemy the axis powers were. Therefore, in opening a front on a nation that was opposed to both parties in our war on terror, we have damaged our ability to engage in other real fronts in the war on terror (Iran). It is this incompetence and others that angers liberals most. If this administration could do something without screwing up, I think liberals would give them much more credit and would engage them just as conservatives did with Clinton. But they can’t and this is what upsets liberals the most.
1:57 pm
Mr. Klein:
I agree with some of what you say – specifically that there are some hawkish liberals.
But your Brazil analogy falls a little flat. Brazil would not have been able to assist Germany in attacking the US even if they wanted to. Saddam’s regime (while the al Qaeda connection is tenuous at the moment pending additional information that either refutes or supports that notion) made common cause with other terrorist outfits including the PFLP, Islamic Jihad, and gave finanical support to Hizballah in the 1990’s.
Saddam, in short, had a record of supporting terrorism. Brazil may have been friendly with Germany but could offer her little in the way of support.
Are you saying that Saddam was an effective counterweight to Iranian theocracy and therefore was a plus in the region? I hope not. To have one’s policy hinge on a homicidal madman who could have been overthrown at the drop of a hat would not have been very smart.
Instead, what has begun in Iraq – in what admittedly has proven to be more adifficult task partly as a result of Administration errors and downright incompetence – has in fact sown the seeds of change elsewhere. Chaotic and bloody as things are (and as they may get in Lebanon) what will probably emerge as long as we stay engaged will be regimes we can live and work with. They will most assuredly not be western style democracies. But they will eventually be a damn sight more stable than what they replaced.
8:01 pm
Noah Klein:”We assaulted a nation that had nothing to do with the war on terrorism”, care to elaborate? Nothing, Mr. Klein! That’s a bit of a stretch especially, for someone who actually appears to be considerate. It’s too bad you can’t ask all the dead Kurds about Saddam’s terrorism skills. Or the …...pick one.
8:03 pm
What most discussions in the US fail to consider is the pre-Iraq situation in Europe.America was being increasingly demonized for starving Iraqi children, while European companies were waiting for an end to sanctions. Also, the Europeans kept pushing the dialogue of the cultures garbage, while ignoring or denying the extent of the Islamist problem in their own countries. VDH has two new articles on Europe that are very good.
8:07 pm
The key sentences in Jenkins’ piece, I think, are these:
The word refers to a technique, usually a bomb, not an ideology. A bombing is an anarchic gesture calling for police and medical services. It becomes a political weapon only if publicised and answered with hysteria.
That is the argument that John Kerry made unsuccessfully, that terrorism is largely a law enforcement issue. While that may be a workable theory in the absence of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons (though I disagree), and particularly in the absence of attacks on our home soil, with both of those possibilities in existence it becomes unworkable. For then you have decided that a large number of American life may be lost, and that would be acceptable.
9:13 pm
Another home run,Rick!
9:55 pm
Furtive Glances – Pitchers And Catchers Report Edition
Ah, there’s the smell of horsehide in the air. A few notable stories and posts at the end of a busy Sunday. Label this one ‘hope springs eternal’, though the wait is a lot shorter than it once was. The
10:53 pm
Rick,
“Saddam, in short, had a record of supporting terrorism. Brazil may have been friendly with Germany but could offer her little in the way of support.”
First, I disagree that Brazil could offered less support to the Nazis than Saddam offered to terrorists, but getting in to comparative discussion would us off-track. Furthermore, I won’t disagree that Saddam had ties to terrorism (the man tried to kill a president), yet I will disagree that these ties amounted to a serious threat to the United States. Saddam was a bad guy and I will not shed a tear when the Iraqis kill him, but he was contained threat. The one thing that we have learned from after the war is that Saddam’s threats to his neighbors or to project that further were exaggerated.
“Are you saying that Saddam was an effective counterweight to Iranian theocracy and therefore was a plus in the region? I hope not. To have one’s policy hinge on a homicidal madman who could have been overthrown at the drop of a hat would not have been very smart.”
I would never say that Saddam was plus in the region and strong democratic Iraq is very much preferred to a weak autocratic Iraq, yet this was the same policy used by Reagan to combat two potential threats. A warring Iran and Iraq is a tragedy in human terms, but a strategic benefit in geopolitical terms.
11:48 pm
The left hasn’t learned a damned thing from 9/11
No matter how badly the Bush administration is handling its various situations, the American left not only doesn’t understand what is going on, but because of that, they have no clue as to what they should or could be doing differently. In fact, ...
2:03 pm
Argentina was friendlier toward Germany than Brazil, which sent an entire division to fight on the Italian front in 1945.
2:05 pm
WMD Redux - The "Intelligence Summit" fallout
After watching the ABC "Nightline" report on Wednesday that gave a sneak preview of some the Saddam tapes being featured by the bi-partisan Intelligence Summit over the weekend, a few things were clear: ABC, working from what some experts…
9:16 pm
DID I MISS ONE OF THE CLASSES!? Is it just me or are the remarks I quoted in #3 from Noah Klein in #2, in conflict with the opening statement in his response to Rick Moran in #8?
I’m suddenly reminded of an old (BW)TV show…..Will the real Noah KLein, please stand up?
9:56 pm
Forest,
I doubt you’ll read this since the blog has moved on, but ties to regional terrorists (such as paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel) is different than our War on Terrorism. Our War on Terrorism is against an organization that projected those methods against us. Al-Qaeda’s goal was not the destruction of Israel. Al-Qaeda laid its goals both prior to and after 9/11 and those goals dealt with getting the U.S. out of the Middle East. Now he had no legitimate reason to insist on that, since Saudi Arabia asked us to be there, but that is his grip.
There are some countries in the region that support al-Qaeda or its affiliates (Iran, Pakistan did before 9/11, Saudi Arabia, UAE and others), but Iraq was not one of them. Iraq is a secular, somewhat communistic state. Saddam was Bathist, who received funds from the USSR. He went to the USSR in the 1970’s after a high-profile murder in Iraq. His state policies were communistic. And as you know (since conservatives love to point out) communists are atheists.
Along those lines, Osama Bin Laden, after the USSR-Afghanistan war, came back to Saudi Arabia. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama Bin Laden went to the King of Saudi Arabia and requested to fight a war against Iraq. After being rebuffed by the King, Osama formed al-Qaeda to eliminate all infidels from the Middle East. Osama has called Islamic infidels worse than other infidels, because they should know better. There is no love lost between these two.
These two men (Osame and Saddam) have/had vastly different goals for their region. Osama wanted to establish a new Caliphate. Saddam wanted to establish a new Arabian empire, like the USSR, with him as the leader. These two goals are very different and thus more in conflict than our goals and their goals in the region. This why I said what I said and why it is not a conflict.
BTW, that thing quoted is from a song, not a TV show.
2:19 pm
You are talking rubbish, although more intelligently than most American rightists. Having said that, I do not want to antagonise you and I value your response. Jenkins is dead right (by the way he is not a liberal and the Times is a rightwing paper). I am a liberal I suppose. Anyway, my main point is that America has a knack of shooting itself in the foot. Removal of the Taliban was a reasonable response to 9/11, the Iraq war was not. Generally in ethics, you need a strong justification to act – letting someone die may be bad, but it is not as bad as killing them. Have to go now, if this is interesting please challenge me and I will come back with more. PS, I am not stereotype leftie as I don’t like abortion – taking life is wrong and devaluing VERY young people is fascistic.