Sunday's edition of Meet the Press kicked off the NBC program's 2006 Senate debate series. Up to bat first were Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) and challenger Bob Casey Jr. (D). Widely considered one of the more vulnerable Republican incumbents in the upcoming November elections, Santorum's current take on the ongoing war in Iraq and other Bush administration policies are of particular interest.
Bob Casey took the early initiative in the debate by declaring his lack of confidence in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, an issue, which of late, sheds light on whether or not a politician is "for or against" the Bush administration's war policies in a general sense. Casey then turned to Santorum to ask him what his take is on the Defense Secretary.
Santorum replied that he is doing a fine job. The senator then went on to lay out what may well become the Republican strategy this campaign season. During a lengthy response, Santorum tied the war in Iraq to the broader "war on terror," something President Bush and other Republican leaders have sought to do over the past two to three years.
Interestingly though, the specter of a threat from Iran came up numerous times. Iran, it seems, is both an "enemy" and an entity to be blamed for the current state of affairs in Iraq. Iraq, merely one front in the wider war on terror according to Santorum, should be looked at within the broader scope of the struggle against the "Islamic fascists." The lynchpin of this focus-shift boils down to Santorum's declaration that "I don't think the focus should be on Iraq, it should be on Iran."
This attempt to shift the focus from the ongoing sectarian violence and American casualties in Iraq to new security threats can be seen as part of a familiar Republican strategy to stress national security issues – which some might call the Fear Card – during political campaigns.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Georgio
Santorum played the FEAR CARD just like the religious fanatics do...take away fear and the church pews would be empty...Santorum proved he is a rubber stamp for Bush and his failed policies..He gives the voters a clear choice .
2 - Eric Berlin
I found the phrasing that helped title this piece to be extraordinary, Georgio. Saying that "the focus" should not be on Iraq after three years of war and no end in sight is a sign that Santorum, at the least, is in serious trouble come November.
3 - Dean
If you can't win in Afghanistan, attack Iraq...
If you can’t win in Iraq, attack Iran...
If you can’t win in Iran…
What?
4 - Eric Berlin
Some Republicans would argue that Iran and Iraq are simply fronts of the broad "war on terror." Personally, I don't think it washes. Most people now believe that Iraq is *not* a part of the war on terror. And I think a Democratic assertion that we should be spending resources in going after al Qaeda and bin Laden will resonate with a deeply unhappy electorate.
5 - Georgio
Iran should be a focus but not the way Santorum or Bush think..how about some dialog..As Joe Biden said "Iraq is going to get their nukes and nothing we do will stop them"..anyway what gives us the right to tell them that they or Korea can;t have them when Pakistan and India have them ..I would be more worried about Pakistan with their phony leader..I don't think Iran or Korea would use them unless they are attacked ..they are not suicidal ..they know they would be blown off the map..
6 - Eric Berlin
I think that the Bush administration has a credibility problem in the region. Iran sees an aggressive occupying force in a country next to its borders. It knows that it has been pooled into the "axis of evil," etc.
I'm not saying that Iran's leadership are happy-fun-sunshine and peace-loving. But our Iraq policy -- particularly in the way we've gone about prosecuting this war -- has helped to bring about much of what has gone on recently, from heightened sectarian violence in Iraq, to a defiant Iran, to the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war, etc.
In my view, new American leadership is needed that can take a new and comprehensive approach to foreign policy and the middle east.
7 - MCH
FWIW, in reference to Santorum's military pontifications, keep in mind the Republican (the self-proclaimed "national defense" party) Pennsylvania senator has never served in the armed forces, in spite of a perfect opportunity during Desert Storm.
8 - Dave Nalle
This is not a military position, it's a political and foreign policy statement. Doesn't mean he's not an idiot and absolutely wrong, but it has zero to do with military experience or lack thereof. If you had your way people would need to have served in the military to vote, so how seriously can we take you?
Dave
9 - Dean
Dave is back talking about the glory of not serving in the military.
10 - MCH
"If you had your way people would need to have served in the military to vote, so how seriously can we take you?"
No...just to having served before sending someone else to fight their battles for them.
And what's with the "we" shit, Nalle? I realize you're a domineering control-freak, but that doesn't give you the right to speak for everyone else.
11 - Georgio
Bush is out campaigning for the GOP today under the guise that he is talking on terror... Bullshit..anyway he said "I will not allow Iran to get the Atomic bomb...so look for him to bomb Iran before Nov.
12 - Matthew T. Sussman
Something tells me Santorum will quickly not be part of the comments.
I'll be right back with some Sour Patch Kids. This oughta be fun to watch.
13 - Dr. Kurt
Hmm... perhaps the genius senator from Pennsylvania would encourage Rumsfeld to make another trip to Iraq in order to donate some biological WMDs to them, like he did in the 1980's. Our violent interference was a disaster then, it is a disaster now, and will no doubt be one tomorrow. No worries, though; Santorum will probably wind up with a cushy job at a conservative think tank.
14 - Martin Lav
Looks like Nalle is looking for the acusatory "chickhawk" label applied, like an eagle eye himself....
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Eric,
With respect to the senatorial race at hand, Santorum was loyally towing the line of his leader. I won't comment on the candidates themselves, being that I know nothing of Pennsylvania politics.
But in reality, Iran was the greater threat to the United States in 2003, and is now as well. My views on American participation in Iraq are well documented and I won't bother to repeat them here. Iran has just defeated a dependency of the Uited States, Israel, on the battlefield, through a proxy, HizbAllah, and s extending its power through a grand strategy all the way to the Mediterranean.
In this instance, Santorum's statement on where the emphasis in American policy should be was a case of the wrong person saying the right thing for all the wrong reasons...
16 - Martin Lav
The so-called "axis" is indeterminable if their is no compass, which with this administration, their appears to be naught. Speaking of a proxy war, wasn't that Iraq/Iran?
17 - Eric Berlin
I believe you're right Martin -- the lack of a compass in both Iraq and the region prevents the US from making any serious progress toward peace, stability, and our long-term (American) security interests.
Ruvy, Fareed Zakaria today paints a much different picture of Iran than you do, basically arguing that the US has created the very "enemy" through lavishing attention upon perceived threats, etc. I don't have the link handy at present.
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Eric,
Where does this fellow Zakaria write?
19 - troll
(Martin asks - *Speaking of a proxy war, wasn't that Iraq/Iran?*
the Iraq Iran war was a proxy war between Russia which armed Iraq and China which armed Iran...the US entered the game late only when the conflict looked likely to threaten oil shipping lanes
the US had been alienated by both countries - Iraq had finally fully nationalized oil production and Iran had gone nuts...it wasn't easy to choose a dog in that fight and Administrations had covert dealings with both sides)
20 - Eric Berlin
Zakaria writes for Newsweek, Ruvy.
21 - JP
They've been trying to pull us in this direction all year.
22 - Dean
Suicide terrorism is primarily caused by Islamic fundamentalism. True or false? Although it seems counter-intuitive, especially given everything we read and hear in the mainstream media, the correct answer is ''false.''
In his recent book, ''DYING TO WIN: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,'' University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has provided an indispensable public service by collecting data from all 315 suicide terrorist campaigns from 1980 to 2003, involving 462 individuals. His overall finding: The major objective of 95 percent of suicide attacks is to expel foreign military forces from territory that the terrorists perceive as their homeland. There is little connection with Islamic fundamentalism or any of the world religions.
The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism and it's ''mainly a response to foreign occupation.'' The objective is political self-determination. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a secular, clearly anti-religious movement, have committed 76 of the 315 suicide attacks, the most of any group. Their specific goal was an independent homeland in Sri Lanka. Pape, who has also taught at the U.S. Air Force's Advanced Airpower Studies, convincingly demonstrates that ''suicide terrorist groups are neither primarily criminal groups dedicated to enriching their top leaders, nor religious cults isolated from the rest of their society. Rather, suicide terrorist organizations often command broad social support within the national communities from which they recruit, because they are seen as pursuing legitimate nationalist goals.'' Absent these goals, suicide terrorism rarely occurs.
Only 6 percent of the perpetrators have come from the five countries with the world's largest Islamic fundamentalist populations. (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran and Nigeria).
He notes, ''Prior to America's invasion in March 2003, Iraq had never experienced a suicide bombing in its history.'' Further, Pape's demographic profiles of individual suicide terrorists reveals they are not uneducated, poor, mentally unstable, lacking in prospects, or young men expecting to spend paradise in the company of 72 virgins. Almost exactly the opposite is true.
The data indicates they have higher incomes, intelligence and education, are deeply integrated into their communities, are highly politically conscious and from widely varied religious backgrounds. A significant minority are female.
Obviously, killing innocents is a morally repugnant act, but the evidence also strongly suggests that these individuals are motivated by a deep sense of duty and view their actions as a sacrifice for a nation's common good, its culture and community goals.
Reprehensible, of course. But not caused by religious fervor. Although suicide attacks account for only 3 percent of terrorist incidents, they account for 48 percent of all fatalities. Clearly it's the most deadly manifestation of terrorism and there is every reason to suspect it will increase. It works.
Placing tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the Arabian Peninsula between 1990 and 2001 was the pivotal factor accounting for the Sept. 11 attacks. Pape concludes that given the high correlation between foreign military occupation and suicide terrorist movements, the continued and hated presence of American troops in the region will greatly facilitate terrorist organizers in recruiting fresh volunteers.
My own take is that here we get to the nub of the matter. U.S. military might is concentrated in this region for one reason: He who controls the world's energy resources, especially scarce oil resources, controls the world. He also becomes fabulously wealthy.
Permanent military bases in Iraq are crucial to realizing their ends. How much easier, and necessary, for U.S. planners to deceive our citizens that Iraq and all the rest is about a ''war on terrorism'' related to Islamic fundementalism than to reveal the truth about their motives. They're well aware that an enlightened American public would refuse to give our nation's blessing, blood, and treasure to such a nefarious enterprise.
The so-called ''war on terror'' is fatally flawed because its planners are incapable of addressing the real political goals of those employing terrorism. They can't afford to do so. Precious little time remains to reverse a U.S. course of action that virtually guarantees a significant uptick in deadly attacks on Americans, both here and abroad.
-- Gary Olson, Ph.D., is chair of the Political Science Department at Moravian College in Bethlehem.
23 - Eric Berlin
Very interesting Dean! I'm not sure if I agree with your take on what led up to 9-11 -- I think there are numerous factors that can be looked at there.
24 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Eric,
I found the piece that Zakaria wrote for Newsweek, or at least I think I did.
I provided page 2 of the article where Zakaria gets to Ahmadinejad and Iraqn.
Let's take a look at what he has to say:
One man who is greatly enjoying being the subject of this outsize portraiture is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has gone from being an obscure and not-so-powerful politicianâ€"Iran is a theocracy, remember, so the mullahs are ultimately in controlâ€"to a central player in the Middle East simply by goading the United States and watching Washington take the bait. By turning him into enemy No. 1, by reacting to every outlandish statement he makes, the Bush administration has given him far more attention than he deserves. And so now he writes letters to Bush, offers to debate him and prances about in the global spotlight provided by American attention.
Ahmadinejad strikes me as less a messianic madman and more a radical populist, an Iranian Huey Long. He has outflanked the mullahs on the right on nuclear policy, pushing for a more confrontationist approach toward Washington. He has outflanked them on the left on women's rights, arguing against some of the prohibitions women face. (He wants them to be able to attend soccer matches.) Almost every week he announces a new program to "help the poor." He uses the nuclear issue because it gives him a great nationalist symbol. For a regime with little to show after a quarter century in powerâ€"Iranian standards of living have actually declined since the revolutionâ€"nuclear power is a national accomplishment.
Even Ahmadinejad's most grotesque statement, implying the annihilation of Israel, is likely part of this pattern. Iran is seeking leadership in the Middle East, and what better way to do so than by appropriating the core grievance of the Sunni Arabs: Israel. By making his dramatic statements, he is taunting the regimes of the Arab world, using rhetoric they dare not, for fear of Washington. His rhetoric is not so new; the Iranian "moderate" Ali Hashemi Rafsanjani said similar things. The real shift that has taken place in the Middle East is that 30 years ago most Arab regimes would have made statements like Ahmadinejad's. Today his "rejectionism" stands alone.
Iran is run by a nasty regime that destabilizes an important part of the world, frustrates American and Western interests, and causes problems for allies like Israel. But let's get some perspective. The United States is far more powerful than Iran. And, on the issue of Tehran's nuclear program, Washington is supported by most of the world's other major powers. As long as the alliance is patient, united and smartâ€"and keeps the focus on Tehran's actions not Washington's bellicosityâ€"the odds favor America. Ahmadinejad presides over a country where more than 40 percent of the population lives under the poverty line; his authority is contested, and Iran's neighbors are increasingly worried and have begun acting to counter its influence. If we could contain the Soviet Union, we can contain Iran. Look at your calendar: it's 2006, not 1938.
One should be careful with analogies. Indeed, it is 2006, not 1938. The United States is desperately trying to stay on top of the world and is sinking (or has nearly drowned) in debt, a situation very unlike 1938.
If, instead of looking at Ahmdinejad through the eyes of a jumpy White House, we look with the eyes of an historian, we see that Zakaria's analysis has much to credit it. The United States is far far more powerful than Iran - so long as its creditors give it rope. Iran is a fifth rate nothing due largely to the policies of the Shia dictatorship.
But that still does not change the fact that a proxy of Iran, HizbAllah, defeated a proxy of the United States, Israel, and largely because of the faulty grand strategy in Washington (Olmert is too stupid to have a grand strategy - he took his marching orders from Washington), as well as the faulty strategy and tactics thereby forced upon an unready IDF.
It does not change the fact that for the first time in 1,400 years, Iranian troops are on the Mediterranean, even if they are dressed in HizbAllah garb. It does not change the fact that the grand strategy of the Iranian mullahs, creating a Shia state-within-a-state in tiny helpless Lebanon, has been a success for them and a problem for the proxy of the United States, or the fact that the United States cannot afford to extend real aid to help its own proxy rebuild, much less help a country it would much more prefer as an ally, Lebanon.
Looking at a it all in a slightly different lens, Iran, through its lapdog HizbAllah, has kept America from obtaining what the state department views as the real jewel, Lebanon. America's state department is stuck with the shrewish sister to the south that it wants to dump, Israel.
I won't make excuses for the stupidity in your government's halls of power. But I'm galled by the stupidity in mine in listening to America instead of a decent and intelligent IDF...
Finally, all that Zakaria writes does not change the fact that Iran has imperial pretensions over this part of the world, whereas Iraq only wanted a 19th province in Kuwait; and it is my opinion that Zakaria makes a deadly error in dismissing the messianic element of Ahmadinejad's leadership.
25 - Dean
#23
"I think there are numerous factors that can be looked at there."
Eric -- I would like to hear them.