Friday, March 19, 2004
Who is playing into whose hands?
The ongoing TeamBush media offensive to again link Iraq and al Qaeda and the War on Terrorism as the election approaches was made clear by Rep. Tom DeLay, who spoke out against those who think terrorism is just another matter to be handled by policeman instead of by a military fighting it like the war it is.
A great up-is-downism in action. Of course we're all torn about this issue because we want to do the best thing but also want to be safe. The GOP answer since September 12, 2001 has been that we are "at war," which misses the point on several fronts.
First, every nation that has successfully dealt with regional and cross-border terror groups has done so as police actions with occasional support by military troops when appropriate--Spain with ETA, England with the IRA, and most of Western Europe with the Red Brigade, Bader-Meinhoff Gang, PLO and a host of off-shoots.
These groups all saw themselves as self-styled warriors, all of them demanded to be treated as soldiers and all saw their bombing, assassination, and kidnapping activities as combat actions. The success that these nations had came in part from the fact that they steadfastly refused to treat them as anything more than common criminals, albeit ones with socio-political ideologies. To date, what success the world community has had against this round of Islamic terror has come from the police and from intelligence, not military might.
The fact is that terrorists of this ilk desperately want to be considered soldiers. It helps their wounded psyches and certainly helps their causes. In any culture it's far less romantic to be a backer of criminals instead of freedom fighters or religious warriors.
The idea put forth by David Brooks and others comparing the Spanish vote to the appeasement of Hitler is thus more than a bit off the mark, as Jonathan Freedland noted:
"The Spanish electorate were not voting for a cave-in to al-Qaida. On the contrary, many of those who opposed the war in Iraq did so precisely because they feared it would distract from the more urgent war against Islamist fanaticism. (Witness the US military resources pulled off the hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and diverted to Baghdad.) Nor was it appeasement to suggest that the US-led invasion of an oil-rich, Muslim country would make al-Qaida's recruitment mission that much easier."
To take the point further it is Bush, rather than the Spanish electorate, who is playing to the tune called by al Qaeda.
All militant fundamentalists share two traits: a belief in the unerring righteousness of their actions and a vision for the end of times--a violent conflagration that precludes a glorious period of peace and justice where their beliefs will be universally accepted and their actions in this time of strife glorified and justified. In short, they know how the world will end, and they know they will come out on top--living or dead.
From the very beginning what bin Laden wanted most of all was to provoke the US into David and Goliath style military conflict in which the sheer brute power and strength of our military would sway opinion in the Islamic world against our 'wicked' nation. As Elizabeth Sullivan noted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
"In the Feb. 11, 2003, audiotape, the person purporting to be bin Laden predicts the coming Iraq war will let the faithful cast off Iraqi "apostates" and "hypocrites," including the socialist infidel Saddam, and afford a new opportunity to embarrass and bloody U.S. forces."
So here we are one year from the start of this mis-adventure. I'll close with two items. The first is a quote from our leader as he announced the start of the war. You can score its accuracy for yourself. The last item is a spot poll of Plain Dealer readers I found as I was linking to Sullivan's excellent analysis. They seem to have some definite opinions about how to score Mr. Bush's card. And let's recall that Cleveland, Ohio ain't exactly Berkeley.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17th, 2003.
Q. One year later, has the war in Iraq been successful?
Latest Poll Results:
Yes 16.0%
No 80.9%
Not sure 3.1%
The ongoing TeamBush media offensive to again link Iraq and al Qaeda and the War on Terrorism as the election approaches was made clear by Rep. Tom DeLay, who spoke out against those who think terrorism is just another matter to be handled by policeman instead of by a military fighting it like the war it is.
A great up-is-downism in action. Of course we're all torn about this issue because we want to do the best thing but also want to be safe. The GOP answer since September 12, 2001 has been that we are "at war," which misses the point on several fronts.
First, every nation that has successfully dealt with regional and cross-border terror groups has done so as police actions with occasional support by military troops when appropriate--Spain with ETA, England with the IRA, and most of Western Europe with the Red Brigade, Bader-Meinhoff Gang, PLO and a host of off-shoots.
These groups all saw themselves as self-styled warriors, all of them demanded to be treated as soldiers and all saw their bombing, assassination, and kidnapping activities as combat actions. The success that these nations had came in part from the fact that they steadfastly refused to treat them as anything more than common criminals, albeit ones with socio-political ideologies. To date, what success the world community has had against this round of Islamic terror has come from the police and from intelligence, not military might.
The fact is that terrorists of this ilk desperately want to be considered soldiers. It helps their wounded psyches and certainly helps their causes. In any culture it's far less romantic to be a backer of criminals instead of freedom fighters or religious warriors.
The idea put forth by David Brooks and others comparing the Spanish vote to the appeasement of Hitler is thus more than a bit off the mark, as Jonathan Freedland noted:
"The Spanish electorate were not voting for a cave-in to al-Qaida. On the contrary, many of those who opposed the war in Iraq did so precisely because they feared it would distract from the more urgent war against Islamist fanaticism. (Witness the US military resources pulled off the hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and diverted to Baghdad.) Nor was it appeasement to suggest that the US-led invasion of an oil-rich, Muslim country would make al-Qaida's recruitment mission that much easier."
To take the point further it is Bush, rather than the Spanish electorate, who is playing to the tune called by al Qaeda.
All militant fundamentalists share two traits: a belief in the unerring righteousness of their actions and a vision for the end of times--a violent conflagration that precludes a glorious period of peace and justice where their beliefs will be universally accepted and their actions in this time of strife glorified and justified. In short, they know how the world will end, and they know they will come out on top--living or dead.
From the very beginning what bin Laden wanted most of all was to provoke the US into David and Goliath style military conflict in which the sheer brute power and strength of our military would sway opinion in the Islamic world against our 'wicked' nation. As Elizabeth Sullivan noted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
"In the Feb. 11, 2003, audiotape, the person purporting to be bin Laden predicts the coming Iraq war will let the faithful cast off Iraqi "apostates" and "hypocrites," including the socialist infidel Saddam, and afford a new opportunity to embarrass and bloody U.S. forces."
So here we are one year from the start of this mis-adventure. I'll close with two items. The first is a quote from our leader as he announced the start of the war. You can score its accuracy for yourself. The last item is a spot poll of Plain Dealer readers I found as I was linking to Sullivan's excellent analysis. They seem to have some definite opinions about how to score Mr. Bush's card. And let's recall that Cleveland, Ohio ain't exactly Berkeley.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17th, 2003.
Q. One year later, has the war in Iraq been successful?
Latest Poll Results:
Yes 16.0%
No 80.9%
Not sure 3.1%
Comments:
Post a Comment
