If the talking points of the left are to be believed - and they shouldn't automatically to be discounted - nothing the Administration has done in the War on Terror since 9/11 has accomplished anything meaningful in protecting us from terrorism. Yet the fact remains that we haven't suffered a significant terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. One constant point hammered on by critics of the War on Terror is that it's being used as a 'fearmongering' tactic to build political capital by frightening voters into thinking they can only be safe by voting for Republicans in 2006. It's an interesting perspective, but if President Bush is fearmongering he has an awfully strange way of going about it. I may be concerned about some of Bush's methods, but his willingness to go to extremes in pursuing terrorists is more reassuring than frightening. Being told our government is doing everything they can to fight terror as he does speech after speech, ought to be what we want to hear, not something that scares us.
In a recent letter to supporters, Tom Matzzie of MoveOn.org suggested some talking points for letters to legislators which sound an awful lot like fearmongering in their own right.
And our story is important to tell—both to protect America and our democracy. Here are some key points to discuss in your letter (all of them are listed in the online tool too).
Five years after 9/11, the Bush administration has failed to keep us safe.
The war in Iraq has diverted attention from protecting America from terrorism.
The war in Iraq has inflamed the whole Middle East and is helping Al Qaeda attract new recruits. Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose.
Katrina showed all of us that the Republicans aren't able to protect America at home. The Republican Congress hasn't followed through on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Mostly valid points, though the fact remains that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil in the five years since Al Qaeda brought down the Twin Towers, and an Osama on the run seems to be far less effective than he was sitting at the middle of his terror network and pulling every string. But at the same time, isn't this rhetoric just as overblown as anything coming from the right? What's more frightening or a better example of fearmongering than shouting over and over again that the people who are supposed to be protecting us aren't doing their job? There's clearly plenty of political opportunism to go around.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lumpy
Refreshing to see someone saying what our leaders are too gutless or opportunistic to admit.
2 - Arch Conservative
You cannot win a war on a phenomenon which is natural symptom of the dynamics of society."
Not even if you change society Dave?
I mean many Iraquis hated Saddam and didn't hate the US as much as some might have us think but were too afraid of him and his henchman to speak out.
Many Iranians don't particulary care for thier current ragime and would like to live more westernized lives but also live in fear of thier leaders.
What if someone were to help topple those regimes and allow the voices currently living in fear to come to the forefront in those nations?
How long would that go in negating the radicals in those nations?
It's only been several years for us in Iraq but people are unhappy because they are not a full fledged functioning democracy as of yet?
Are the only things worth doing those things which can be done quickly?
just a few thoughts.
3 - Dean
"the fact remains that we haven't suffered a significant terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11."
Not quite.
We are told repeatedly we could be attacked again any day and this threat will be with us for decades.
America suffers from a constant fear which has been engendered by our leaders.
Terrorism is intended to create fear.
The palpable fear in America is significant and is a form of "terrorism."
4 - Lumpy
As the article pointed out your argument is BS, Dean. the government reassuring us that they are proactive in fighting terror is more like the opposite of terrorizing us. If anything they are spreading false hope.
5 - RJ Elliott
Our destiny in this war will be decided in 2008.
If we elect a mainstream Republican or a hawkish/moderate Democrat, Bush's "War On Terror" will have been "ratified" in much the same way that FDR's "New Deal" was ratified by Eisenhower and Reagan's small gov't message was ratified by Clinton. That will mean we are in it for the long haul.
But if a leftist/pacifist Democrat or an isolationist Republican wins in 2008, then the entire concept of the "War On Terror" will be washed away as the feverish nightmare of a single President.
And this matters a great deal. Because it will determine the course of the West's foreign policy for decades...
6 - MCH
"And this matters a great deal. Because it will determine the course of the West's foreign policy for decades..."
Another thing that will harm the West's foreign policy for decades is the dwindling size of our armed forces, specifically deteriorated due to the avoidance of service by able bodied men who are willing to allow others to fight their battles for them...
7 - Jet in Columbus
Dave "...it's being used as a 'fearmongering' tactic to build political capital by frightening voters into thinking they can only be safe by voting for Republicans in 2006"
Bush's biggest problem is the American Short Attention Span Syndrome. Bush knows that his strongest support from both sides of the aisle has been when we were all afraid of the consequences of war. The attack, the counterattack, the fear of the deaths of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. We were all so impressed with our battlefield victories because of the superior American technology, but the American people beginning how little that actually got us without enough troops on the ground to support those goals.
It's my theory that he's slowly trying to make us more and more gradually "patriotic" leading up to November.
In fact I wouldn't be suprised if bin Laden wasn't located, but not caught just before the November elections.
We're too used to the status quo, so he's got to make the "status quo" scarier to keep us on his side.
Trouble is the American voter is getting bored with the whole thing and nothing will solve that problem accept bin Laden's head on a plate.
Jet
8 - Mohjho
Good post Dave
Let us not forget our own domestic terror in Oklahoma City. Seems we tend to overlook the near to focus on the far. We need a sober and rational strategy that includes the help of all types of Americans, not just a small cross section of our population. One of the best places to start is our own government agencies. I always felt that we could use the resource that we have more effectively.
The fiasco of Katrina showed a large flaw in how we staff and lead large government agencies. In business, if something doesnt work as advertised, it gets changed. Our own security agencies should be no different. Political pandering is a sure fire way to screw up communications and clog effective action to fast moving situations.
We have the means, talent, money, and will. We just need a balanced and experienced leadership. There are talented people who live there whole lives fighting the bad guys, these are the ones that should be leading the fight.
9 - Dave Nalle
You cannot win a war on a phenomenon which is natural symptom of the dynamics of society."
Not even if you change society Dave?
I did discuss this in the article. Yes, if you change society you can remove the motivation for terrorism. But even the US with all its wealth and power cannot change all the downtrodden societies in the world. We can't do it by force and we certainly can't do it quickly through free trade and spreading capitalism gradually.
What if someone were to help topple those regimes and allow the voices currently living in fear to come to the forefront in those nations?
Is that really our job?
How long would that go in negating the radicals in those nations?
It would just create a different set of radicals in most cases if we don't address the underlying problems, and I'm not sure that we CAN address those problems on a large enough scale at a price we can afford.
It's only been several years for us in Iraq but people are unhappy because they are not a full fledged functioning democracy as of yet?
The fundamental question is whether it's possible to impose democracy from above when the people aren't ready for it. For years the US has chosen to back benevolent pro-capitalist dictators rather than democracy because it's cheaper and seems to work better. Maybe that policy hasn't been such a terrible thing. It's possible that countries like Iraq just aren't ready for democracy.
Dave
10 - Clavos
What if someone were to help topple those regimes and allow the voices currently living in fear to come to the forefront in those nations?
Isn't that exactly what we went into Iraq for? You know, the war we've screwed up so badly, everyone wants out us of it?
Nope, US hasn't got the heart, the guts or the balls to do that, Arch.
11 - Dave Nalle
It's my theory that he's slowly trying to make us more and more gradually "patriotic" leading up to November.
Nothing wrong with patriotism, Jet. If we're all stoked up on it then we should go to the polls and vote both parties out on their asses just for pandering the way they do.
In fact I wouldn't be suprised if bin Laden wasn't located, but not caught just before the November elections.
It actually wouldn't surprise me at all either.
We're too used to the status quo, so he's got to make the "status quo" scarier to keep us on his side.
Then why am I so totally not scared at all?
Trouble is the American voter is getting bored with the whole thing and nothing will solve that problem accept bin Laden's head on a plate.
Ah, perhaps I am just bored with the sturm und drang. After a certain point it does become hard to take seriously.
Dave
12 - SHARK
Davey, mark yer calendar: In general, I would agree with you on most of your major points here,
ALTHOUGH I HAVE A few {minor?} quibbles:
1) "...that mess in Iraq is killing potential terrorists faster than it makes them..."
YOU MUST BE JOKING!?
Davey, here's the MAIN problem that this "liberal" has ALWAYS had with GW Bush and Iraq: that ill-advised invasion diverted military, treasury, and attention from the [new Sharkian term]-> DEFENSE against Terrorism -- while creating a huge network/urban recruiting/training center for future terrorists.
It also upped the opposition of moderate (et al) Muslims in the region.
It also isolated the US from many European and Asian allies;
it also burned up the post-9/11 SYMPATHY/GOOD WILL FACTOR that many foreigners felt for Americans.
And BTW: I notice none of the Bush-Iraq war supporters have mentioned THE MOST important story in years: THE KISS between the President of IRAQ and the President of IRAN.
HELLO! -- Democratically elected, freedom-loving, Shiite THEOCRACY in Iraq!
GOODBYE! -- $300 Billion and almost 3000 American G.I. lives!
2) "...every job we create and every TV show we export to the third world we do more to fight terrorism in the long run by raising up their economies and spreading our cultural values than we do with all our threats and surveillance..."
As applied to specifically radical Islamic nations/populations, this couldn't be MORE WRONG.
"They" don't want our "economies". They see Materialistic American-Consumer Greed as one of the major manifestations of Evil in the contemporary world. Same can be said about our "cultural values": those "values" [in their minds, "LACK THEREOF"] are one of the major causes of their opposition to The West.
(A few weeks ago, I saw a photo on the front page of the Sun. NY TIMES that showed a group of soft-porn "erotic" dancers performing for the troops in BAGHDAD. I know that's just a good ol' all-American USO type activity that Bob Hope would be proud of -- but I couldn't help thinking, "And we wonder WHY THEY HATE US... ahahaha...")
You don't get it, Dave: unlike Russia and China -- who were converted by Levis, Coke, and Rock and Roll -- these motherfuckers DON'T WANT our bright shiney toys. They wanna live in their sacred, medieval ways -- pray, beat their foreheads on the ground five times a day, and dress their oppressed women in outfits designed by Ahmad's Tent & Awning, Inc.
No amount of "economic" invasions will convert these folks: it only pisses 'em off more. *LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE.
*which means "quit lusting for their oil."
3) You fail to mention the dreaded "police investigation tactics" in the Defense Against Terrorists; early on, this epithet was used as a Marketing Tool -- hurled at the dreaded pussywimp liberal leftists -- in contrast to the GOP's big-balled, testosterone fueled "let's send in the Shock and Awe" approach.
BIG MISTAKE. England and Israel have both shown that the most effective tool against terrorists is intelligence and clever police work. Thanks to election rhetoric on the part of the Big Blustery Elephant, we through the baby out with the bathwater. Time to bring it back -- without calling those who advocate it "whimpy pussys".
=========
Oh, and BTW:
Despite Bush et al claims, the fact that we haven't had another terrorist attack since 9/11 IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF BLIND LUCK.
As far as attacking the US (and don't forget, they want to get us where it hurts, which means Crippling Our Economy) -- there are about a million different SIMPLE ways to do this -- and believe me, they're working on 'em.
PS: They'll have NOTHING to do with airplanes.
13 - SHARK
Corrections:
"through" should be "threw"
"whimpy" should be "wimpy"
But as I've said before around here:
Yall don't pay me enough to be perfect -- and besides: I'm not a Proofreader; I AM A HUMAN BEING!
14 - Michael J. West
Being told our government is doing everything they can to fight terror as he does speech after speech, ought to be what we want to hear, not something that scares us.
Sure it should. You're right. But the key here is the phrase "doing everything they can." Can in this case ought to mean "are permitted by law and the Constitution," rather than "have the ability and the gumption to do even if legally we're not supposed to." It often seems to mean the latter these days, in which case, if we're NOT scared then we're not paying attention.
15 - Dave Nalle
Wow, I think Shark just agreed with GWB in saying that the radical islamists hate us for our freedom - mark your calendars.
Dave
16 - troll
has anyone seen a move away from oil dependency in the US economy over the past three years - ?
17 - Dave Nalle
I have, troll. It's happening slowly, but it's happening. I plan to be completely oil free by the end of next year. By then my house will be completely solar and we will have replaced the last of our gas-only vehicles with one which will run on alternative fuels.
I belong to a civic group in our local town which is full of 'good old boy' types. 20% or so of them are now driving alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles and the trend is increasing. Our local utility company offers substantial incentives for solarization and is required by federal law to buy back any excess power we produce for the grid. A guy down the street from me just put in some wind turbines - i think he's nuts, but at least he's trying.
Dave
18 - troll
very cool Dave...there's the basis for optimism indeed - but the big MSM news is the availability of more oil in the gulf
19 - Nancy
I'd like to buy an alternative fuel vehicle as my next one, but meanwhile there's the problem that there are damn few places around here to fuel up at. At least, I don't see any 'alternative fuel' stations around. So, if you get one, where the hell do you refuel it?
As for solar, the government should be doing more to mandate all new development must be solar withint the next few years. Except in exceptionally rainy/overcast areas like Seattle, there's no excuse for it.
20 - Georgio
I like the article Dave but I like Sharks comments better and if you think he is echoing Bush than Bush needs a new communications expert ,,,but I think Shark is saying a hell of alot more than you are giving him credit for..It is the reason I was against this war in the first place ..THAT WE ARE NEVER GOING TO CHANGE ISLAM .
21 - Nancy
I should have said this first: excellent article, Dave, and for the most part I agree with you totally, especially your comments #9. It ISN'T our job to go around changing regimes we don't like world-wide. If people don't like their governments, it's up to THEM to either vote them out or overthrow them, and if they're too wimpy & spineless to do the latter, then that's their problem - not ours. As for imposing "Democracy", especially the BushCo version of it, I don't in the least blame other nations for not wanting to import the corruption-ridden, corporate-ruled, plutocratic version the US currently has; frankly it's no better than the home-grown absolutist regimes they already have; it just pays lip service to pretending to be a true democracy. Even the claim that the US is a nation subject to the rule of law has become a hollow joke, thanks to Dubya and his 'above the law' behavior.
Nor is it our part to make the whole world prosperous, or play policeman to the world. We've been doing that now for 100 years or more, and all we've gotten for it is the world's resentment & hatred for interfering, however good our intentions. After all, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The US would go ballistic if a foreign power - say China - were to try to interfere with our internal affairs on the scale on which we so arrogantly interfere with others'; we go berserk when foreign interests even try the relatively mild expedient of influence peddling thru monetary contributions to electioneering politicians.
And now Junior is postulating a new religious revelation directly from God to him: the advent of the 3rd American Religious Revival. Just in time for the elections, he's had a message from God. Oh, cripes, just what we need: Dubya is back on this kick about being convinced he's the 2nd coming. Is there no end to this man's delusions, and those willing to suck up to him by telling him he's right? He's plainly schizoid, and we're letting him function as president? He needs to be in a padded cell - or a jail cell - not the W.H.
22 - SHARK
Jeezus, Dave, I throw you a bone and you fuck me.
Okay.
Dave.
You always accuse me of "not reading" your shit: well back atcha, asshole.
RE: "...Shark just agreed with GWB in saying that the radical islamists hate us for our freedom..."
SHOW ME WHERE, Professor Double-Speak.
I din't say doodly shit about freedom, Dave. I said they hate our greed, our materialism, our lust for toys, our pornography -- our valuing the sensual over the spiritual.
They couldn't care less about "freedom" and democracy, but they don't "hate" us for 'em. It's just not the nature of a close TRIBAL CULTURE to want individualistic attributes such as PROFITS, GREED, FREEDOM, and VOTES/DEMOCRACY.
Tribal fucks want a Chieftain to TELL 'EM WHAT TO DO and WHEN TO DO IT.
The sooner you figure that out, the sooner you'll have some mental tools for dealing with **"Islamo-Fascism".
**coined by K. Rove at the Ken Starr Memorial Media & Language Strategy Center beneath Langley, Virginia.
23 - SHARK
Oh, and Davey, since you ignored my little olive branch, let's talk about THE KISS.
And your predictions about Iraq.
I swear ta Gawd, Nalle, I can go back on BC and find about half a million places where -- when discussing Iraq -- you were wrong and I was right.
I know it hurts to admit that, but I can prove it with a pencil and paper.
Don't make me do it.
Apologize.
On yer knees.
Now.
24 - SHARK
And I posted 3 points -- all of which you ignored.
And I'd still like to hear about...
the...
KISS.
Surrender, Dorothy!
25 - Dave Nalle
Sorry, Shark. You so rarely make a comment I can take seriously at all that I'm not used to responding to you the way I would to a normal commentor. Mostly I just ignore everything you post, a reaction which you create by your extremism and irrationality. If you're going to change styles alltogether and actually post a comment worth reading maybe you should warn us or something.
As for the 'they hate us for our freedom' comment, it originates in what you say here:
"They" don't want our "economies". They see Materialistic American-Consumer Greed as one of the major manifestations of Evil in the contemporary world. Same can be said about our "cultural values": those "values" [in their minds, "LACK THEREOF"] are one of the major causes of their opposition to The West.
(A few weeks ago, I saw a photo on the front page of the Sun. NY TIMES that showed a group of soft-porn "erotic" dancers performing for the troops in BAGHDAD. I know that's just a good ol' all-American USO type activity that Bob Hope would be proud of -- but I couldn't help thinking, "And we wonder WHY THEY HATE US... ahahaha...")
These things are representative of the freedom which is characteristic of the west. Consumerism, lack of cultural values, porn and the like are all part of the excess of liberty which we stand for. We have these things because our society does not place restrictions on how we behave, because our society values individual liberty. When you say that it's our hedonism which pisses off the moslems - which is certainly not incorrect, if also not the complete picture - you are saying exactly the same thing in a more detailed and specific way as GWB is when he says 'they hate us for our freedom.' Decadence and hedonism ARE an expression of freedom.
Sorry for goading you about it, but I don't think you can disagree with this. Well, you can, but you'll be contradicting yourself.
This is separate from your point that we cannot change islam. On that point I think you are fundamentally incorrect. Any culture can be subverted and they wouldn't react so negatively to us if they didn't think that we WERE subverting them culturally and economically.
Our weapon is decadence and hedonism and they are certainly vulnerable to it on an individual basis and as nations. Certain Islamic nations have embraced western values and been changed by them. Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan, Dubai, Bahrain and Turkey have all been corrupted to a greater or lesser extent, either by our culture or our wealth. In Iran, which is our main opponent here, their population was massively westernized and that's why they are such hardcore fundamentalists. They saw their country losing what they saw as islamic values and an element of the population reacted against that and turned to religious extremism.
The westernized part of the population largely fled the country as also happened in Lebanon. They're now living in Europe and the US where they have become even more westernized and accepting of our values. Why do you think we have millions of moslems living in the US who aren't up in arms and blowing things up? It's because they've adapted to our culture and have come to like it.
And that's another problem they have to deal with. Our culture is inherently accepting of other lifestyles and theres is not. Moslems can come to the West and preserve the basics of their culture and be accepted. Westerners cannot move into fundamentalist Islamic countries and be accepted if they continue to live as Westerners. That is a sign of great cultural weakness, and their intellectuals are very aware of this. Clannish and exclusionary cultures just don't hold up well in the modern world over the long term.
As for your other point about the War in Iraq not killing terrorists, the numbers certainly don't seem to agree with you. But the point is debatable, because we don't really know how well recruiting is going for Al Qaeda. All we know is that would be terrorists flock to Iraq and are subsequently killed by the thousands. I find it improbable that our actions in one country are enough to generate an infinite amount of anger and terrorist conversion in countries connected only by religion. There are a finite number of people - even in Islam - who are willing to give up their lives for a cause which doesn't immediately impact them. If those people keep coming to Iraq, eventually there won't be any of them left.
And BTW, there's a reason why the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudis. The sad truth is that a lot of the arabs who flock to the terrorist banner aren't capable of being functional international terrorists. There are very few educated, literate and skilled arabs who are willing to die for Allah. The better educated they are the less radical they tend to be. Most of the Yemenis and Somalis who embrace terrorism are barely out of the middle ages culturally and can't pass themselves off as civilized enough to get on an airplane or immigrate to America. All they're good for is strapping on a bomb and pointing towards Israel.
As for our lack of terrorist attacks being sheer luck, I believe I said the same thing in the article. It was sheer luck before 9/11 and it's sheer luck now. Of course the luck is produced by the difficulties involved in finding, recruiting and organizing viable terrorist cells. International terrorism isn't easy to pull off for a variety of reasons, and that's our biggest protection. Also most of the terrorists who get caught in the west get caught because one of their number is 'corrupted' by living in the west and would rather stay there than die in a suicide attack, so he betrays his cell. Another example that our cultural subversion works.
Tribal fucks want a Chieftain to TELL 'EM WHAT TO DO and WHEN TO DO IT.
Which is exactly what I said in #9, Shark.
And what's all this about 'the KISS'? Are we talking about the painting, the band or the Philip Jose Farmer short story, all of which are probably offensive to Islam.
And BTW, there's no comma in 'Surrender Dorothy'. The witch was not asking dorothy to surrender, but was asking the people of Oz to surrender her.
Dave