I can't wait for the comments on this one.

Here, I'll get the ball rolling. Eric, you sheep!

"I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror - and make us safer.

Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans." John Kerry http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

It's hard to see how liberals can be making a better case for the war on security than this.

d-oh, I meant the war on TERROR, not the war on SECURITY...

Re "...I have become a defense hawk..."

In action, or just words?

which means what?

(Pssst. I think he's calling you a chickenhawk.)

I see, then spare me; I also realized it's probably "Curt" in yet another guise. It's his favorite subject.

Any other barnyard references for me?

I'm a liberal who is against the war in Iraq, but for the war on Terror. I think that when my side calls people chickenhawk, it harms OUR side.

I am for a strong police force to defend the citizenry againstr crime, but that doesn't mean I should be expected to go join the force.

By this chickenhawk line of thinking, only the military should support the President in a time of war. How effective could a military be then?

Drop the chickenhawk stuff, unless you are a conservative in liberal clothing. Because you aren't doing the progressive movement any favors.

thanks Steve, very much appreciated and perfectly logical

I never understand how the United States, and other world powers can with a straight face look askance at groups they funded and supported - India did the same with the LTTE, as I've started documenting on my blog- one of the hardest lessons of power is that people will resent those in control.

I am against terror in all forms, but I support the sword of peace. To disbelieve in the terrorist threat is foolhardy. I also believe though, that these are the last gasps of radical Islam - Peace will not be bought, or forced, though - but won through education, employment and development - none of which are in evidence as yet as solutions to the problem.

Best quote:

Global jihad will be with us long after American troops stop dying in Falluja and Mosul. And thus, liberalism will rise or fall on whether it can become, again, what Schlesinger called "a fighting faith."

I, as someone who prefers Republicans to Democrats, have 2 main concerns about what the Dems will do:

#1: They see the light and change. They become just as hawkish as Republicans. And by neutralizing foreign policy, they likely win on domestic stuff. Result - Democrats regain power.

#2: They DON'T see the light and DON'T change. If this happens, they will likely have a tough time regaining power. BUT THEY WILL STILL DO IT, eventually. People aren't going to keep the GOP in power forever, even if they aren't too keen on the alternative. At some point, in some future election, the Republicans are going to be disliked so much that the voters will elect the alternative, regardless of the positions the alterntive takes. (This nearly happened just last month.) If this occurs, not only will the Dems have power, but they will have won while supporting a dangerously-weak foreign policy.

So, either way, the Dems will regain power at some point. And that's why I'm a pessimist... :-/

"I am for a strong police force to defend the citizenry againstr crime, but that doesn't mean I should be expected to go join the force."
Good analogy.

Are Steve S., Steve, and Boom the same person?

I don't know of 'Steve', but yes, Steve S and Boom are both me. I don't use Boom anymore.

I was Boom when I was only a commenter. When I joined officially, about 2 weeks, back, I didn't want that to be the name associated with posts or linked to my blog (where I go by Steve S), so went with Steve S.

good points all:

RJ, the likelihood that at some point the Dems will regain control and the fact that we are all in this together leads me to hope that they see the foreign policy light

Aaman, I am encouraged by your vision and I agree that "education, development and employment" must be part of any successful nation-building effort - we can't just blow them up, we have to help them build something better

Once again, the argument might come down to whether one thinks invading Iraq was a help or a hindrance to the 'fight against terrorism.'

If the invasion 'created' more terrorists than it destroyed, the 'Iraq' aspect of this essay is an exercise in futility.

By the way -- neither side (the puppet on the left and the puppet on the right) appears to see the complexity involved in this global battle; science, education, encouraging moderate Islam, economic development; they're conspicuous in their absense from both camps.

It's easier and much more fun to just send in the Marines.

Simple solutions for a simple-minded populace.

BTW: Sadly, the most immediate way to combat terrorism, ie. global 'police action' has been discredited by the right-wing Word Manipulators as a basically liberal, 'sensitive', wimpy response to 9/11.

This was a partisan and politically expedient 'marketing' move during an election, but will probably paralyze aspects of our 'fight' for years to come.

Hmm. FWIW, Liberal isn't the first word that comes to mind when I think of Eric Olsen. But that ain't worth much - only based on posts here, which I guess have tended to focus on the Iraq war.

I don't agree with everything in the excerpt (especially Beinart's apparent dismissal of the false Iraq-Al Qaeda link and WMD issues as trivial matters) but it discusses my biggest problem with the New York liberal establishment: its willingness to embrace a strict ideology, and throw practical concerns out the window.

I live in New York City, and the weekend after 9/11, a girl told me I was "too American" for saying that the US was obviously going to take some kind of military strike against Al Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan. I won't even get into the "too American" thing, which plays right into the right's "hate-America crowd" image. In retrospect, what's most telling about this exchange is that I wasn't even making a political statement of any sort - I was just stating a baseline assumption we could work from.

And now they're talking about making Dean head of the DNC . . .

Back to Beinart's piece, the thing that bothers me most about the neo-cons is their wide-eyed belief in the West's ability to install successful governments in 3rd world countries (the last time we helped an opposition leader in Iraq take power, it didn't work out so well).

Cliches along the lines of "the ____ people are already better off than they would have been" (which I heard as soon as 2-3 days after both invasions began) reflect a denial of the very real problems that any fledging Middle Eastern democracy will face. The Bush administration's failure to include the full costs of the Iraq War in the budget only underscores how out of touch with reality this approach is.

I see this as two main issues: support for the war on terror, support for Iraq as part of that war. Beinart kind of glosses over whether or not he sees Iraq as part of the greater effort. I personally DO support Iraq as part of that effort but I can very easily understand the positions of those who don't, those who see it as a "distraction" from the "real war."

But what I can't understand, and what Beinart can't either, is those who fail to see the importance of the war on terror itself, who minimize the danger, who conflate perceived sins committed by the U.S. and its allies in the execution of that war with those of whom we are fighting, with those who didn't even see the invasion of Afghanistan as justified or appropriate. This is simply ideologically-based moral obtuseness, and it is that element of the left -- as explified by Moore and MoveOn -- that Beinart correctly reviles and would seek to isolate.

I definitely agree that a lot of people on the left: 1) are not taking the (very real) terrorist threat seriously, and 2) have gone too far in rationalizing the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist mindset as a result of US policies.

The lack of respect for the seriousness of the terror threat was embodied by many New Yorkers' assumption that Homeland Security's August 2004 NYC warnings were merely political manuvering. A more extreme example is found in conspiracy theory circles, where people regularly claim that 9/11 was orchestrated someone other than Al Qaeda. Ironically, this denial of the terror threat seems rooted in an exaggerated perception of the US as omnipotent - and the rest of the world as totally irrelevant. The undeniable truth is that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are out there, they're very dedicated to attacking the US, and they have the money, the expertise, and the brains to pull it off.

As to blaming US policies for terrorism, I think elements of the left are giving fundamentalist extremists way too much credit in assuming that they are rational entities, who might change their minds upon hearing about some change in US policies. I believe we'd still have terrorists trying to attack us even if someone like Dennis Kucinich was our President, with his proposed cabinet-level "Department of Peace" in place.

That said, our policies do have an effect on these groups' popularity in the Islamic world. For example, I cannot think of better fodder for the proverbial Al Qaeda recruiting poster than Bush's numerous references to the crusades during speeches about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or his linkage of the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, despite a lack of evidence. The religious illusions affirmed the terrorists' otherwise absurd notion that we're engaged with a religious war with them; the 9/11-Iraq link, which relied on Americans' tendency to lump most Arabs together, gave the terrorists the race war they've always wanted.

I have never been so proud in my life of a person who has used his BRAIN to think out a position (regardless of labels), and speak his piece. *insert huge grin here.

I won't belabor the points of national security, because you have already done that. But I couldn't help but express my 'atta boy, not because we agree, for on many levels we do not, but because you have a fine brain with which to reason and think. You are one of those people whose vote I support because you NOT a political sheep, or any other kind of sheep, and can think, even if your position is opposite to mine.

Claire

A classic example of Orwellian double-think. Liberal means restricting civil and human rights within arbitrary rules. Defence means waging war against entities who can't or won't muster a responsive challenge. And war on terror means whatever we say it means. Maybe you need a slogan: "Just Say No To Terror".

Please do me a favour, and when you mean to say "permanent war without any responsibility or consequences", use that instead of "defence".

Jim, I disagree with your assessment. There is no Orwellian double-think here. There is considered opinion which blurs "party lines" and is the ideal to making decisions based on fact WITHOUT regard to platform. But I respect your opinion...as always. :)

Claire

I didn't write the following, but it expresses what I said before. So before you give me more of the bafflegab which I said clearly you were engaging in, please read and think about this:

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent, and our language--so the argument runs--must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

OK, Jim, you want the straight skinny? Never let it be said that I indulged in semantic thuggery. I want a strong military who would blow those who wish to destroy our way of life and those things and freedoms we hold dear off the map. You cannot reason with terrorists. Terrorists are not reasonable. They are misguided and are a product of their misguided teachings.

I know we (americans) are accused of being arrogant and knowing what is best for the world. There is no reasonable man or woman who lives on the planet that would quarrel with the fact that oppression is bad, and the freedom to choose your way is good. And if they would argue that, they they have been indoctrinated by the extremists.

I don't a want a pussy President who is afraid to do what he needs to do in order to facilitate that. Is that straight enough?

Claire

The old "City On the Hill" argument sure went down well with those in the Palatine Quarter, and the Caesars justified their continued value by military spending against the barbarians at the gates

This is not intended as a defense of Moore, moveon.org, et al, purely as a reminder that history judges differently from current social context, and militarism is not the solution, or more accurately, only part of the solution.

I agree militarism is only part of the solution, but it is a fundamental part, on the ground and psychologically.

I don't know what what "permanent war" means, but if it means remaining aggessive and on the offense against Islamic extremists and those who support their efforts, then I'm all for it.

And as to "waging war against entities who can't or won't muster a responsive challenge": this strikes me as so obtuse as to border on insanity. Who, what or where have we attacked anyone who didn't "muster a responsive challenge"?

WE were attacked by al Qaeda, not the other way around. And the Taliban fostered, protected and allied itself with al Qaeda. And no response in Iraq? Tell that to the coalition casualties. This isn't some fucking tennis match: it's a GOOD thing when we can overwhelm our enemies and achieve our objectives with minimal - ideally zero - casualties. Whe should only fight when it's "fair"? Interesting perspective.

Claire: "I don't a want a pussy President..."

I dunno -- for me -- some strange reason, this statement epitomizes the entire predicament of humanity in the 21st century.

We're apparently given the finite options between a neo-cortex, transcendental Pussy -- and a limbic driven, reptilian-brained GOP Cowboy.

Have I mentioned we're doomed?


"Stop the world and let me off..."
-- Merle Haggard

My recollection of the election, was that the Swift Vets did not dispute that Kerry was shot at and did not dispute the valor he exhibited in saving the life of another. It was what he did when he got home from the war that got everybody mad.

So to portray Kerry as a 'pussy' is falsehood to me. I believe he has shown far more gumption, valor and courage than Bush has shown from the protective confines of his oval office.

Also, to portray the concept of reaching out to other nations, listening to their concerns, and working together to combat terrorism as wimping out, or being a pussy, is just as sad as portraying a dissenter of the Iraq invasion as a traitor.

The saddest of all is that progressives are no longer combatting this destruction of the truth. This is how democracy dies.

Kerry might not have been the Democrats best choice, but when you put him beside Bush, it's clear that pussy, as the sexist term is used here, is much more synonymous with Bush than with Kerry.

It does not take courage to make unpopular decisions from the security of an ivory tower.

Shark: "Have I mentioned we're doomed?"

This is the kind of negativity rampant among liberals to which Eric refers.

yes, but the regular and recurring cry of Cassandra is almost a source of comfort

"This is the kind of negativity rampant among liberals..." Manning on Shark

Actually, I think the greatest implicit "negativity" is your blindness to current problems. (see Iraq for more)

Anyone who is optimistic about Homo Sapiens' future isn't paying attention.

By the way: Cassandra never met overpopulation, massive environmental pollution, and nuclear weapons.

We'll never solve our problems until we recognize and confront them.

Just because the Ostrich doesn't see doesn't mean it isn't doomed.

Have a nice day.

yes, but the regular and recurring cry of Cassandra is almost a source of comfort

I think that's called "taking the threat seriously".

Contrast with the Bush administration's "War on Terror" which entails invading random countries, declaring victory, and then distracting us from the resulting mess by screaming about gay marriage come election time.

"The terrorists are on the move", when they ought to be dead or in jail by now. The Bush administration didn't take terrorism the least bit seriously before 9/11, and they still don't take it seriously enough to see it as anything more than a military challenge (and a good marketing campaign if the voters don't look to closely at results).

I would say we (in the West) have been "recognizing and ealing" with overpopulation and pollution for about 35 years now. Surely even a skeptic/realist can take some comfort from the results of those efforts.

I do not minimize the ever-looming problem of nuclear weapons, although I will note they have not been used in almost 60 years.

Eric: "I do not minimize the ever-looming problem of nuclear weapons, although I will note they have not been used in almost 60 years."

That's because, for those brainless "No Nukes" activists, past, present and future, they have acted as a deterrence.

Really? 'Cause I could swear I saw two planes fly into tall buildings in NY. And I could swear I've seen terrorist acts perpetrated against our overseas embassies for decades.

Nuclear weapons are only a temporary deterrent, and only against some people. They certainly don't seem to be deterring people who don't have nukes. Besides, it's only a matter of time before someone drops a "real" nuke or a dirty bomb of some sort.

It still strikes me as odd that many people think having enough nukes on the planet to destroy the planet a couple of times over is a good thing. The big chest thumping "don't blow me away because I'll blow you away before the bombs land" kind of diplomacy doesn't work for me.

MAD has worked from a "rational state" perspective but that is no longer the primary concern as "nonrational nonstate" entities become more vicious and ambitious

For those neophytes in the vernacular of man's ever-present self-destructive tendancies, MAD = mutually assured destruction

ie, ...I won't kill you, commit suicide, and ruin the planet if you don't.

Yah, Manning, that's always been a HUGE comfort to me.

And as far as our "record" holding a lit match in a roomful of TNT (ie, nukes in the hands of militaristic dogma thumping reptilian adolescents) -- YES, it's been a full SIXTY YEARS -- about .0000001 percent of man's "historical" period.

I suggest we'll see nukes again used in our lifetime. Possibly suitcase sized. Maybe tomorrow.

Cassandra sez "Have a MAD day."

HOW 'BOUT SOME:

...Pandemic virus? (see latest news!)

...More war? (see GOP 'foreign policy')

...Nuclear annihilation? (See Pakistan-India-Iran-Israel, et al)

...end of earth's short-term homeostasis? (see global warming, projected growth of 'ocean-front property', et al)

Apparently, either God or Gaia depends on certain "natural" cosmic controls to limit the size of our fucked up species.

So we're pushing Mother Nature to "cull of the herd" --- and She doesn't really care "how" she does it.

Pandemic virus?
More war?
Nuclear annihilation?

Hey, don't worry: the big-whammy of "Overpopulation" sorta suggests we'll get all 'at once', kinda yer planet-wide Kervorkian Kocktail.

Cheers!

Thanks for the acronym help, Shark.

So the problem with MAD, then, is that you need an enemy that cares about preventing it's own destruction enough to avoid trying to destroy you.

Unfortunately, our current enemy not only doesn't care if he is destroyed, but he's looking forward to being destroyed in the act of destroying us.

Good news!

Certainly the worst-case scenarios are always a very present danger, so what do we do about it?

Certainly the worst-case scenarios are always a very present danger, so what do we do about it?

Keep the guy with "misfiring synapses" away from the button that launches the nuclear arsenal.

I think four years is probably enough to establish a presumptive floor of stability

Keep the guy with "misfiring synapses" away from the button that launches the nuclear arsenal.

Or keep the terrorists away from the stolen/missing Russian nuclear armaments. Or from instruction on how to detonate a dirty bomb with radioactive material.

Oh wait, too late!