Democrats and Terrorism

Today I happened to buy a copy of the Everett Herald to read on my bus ride to work. Turning to the Op-Ed page, I first noticed Charles Krauthammer’s piece: “Anti-war victory will prove disastrous for Democrats.” I am no great fan of Charlie’s but I figured he might be good for a laugh or two. As I finished his piece I saw the title of the Eugene Robinson piece “Plot shows we're fighting wrong war” and figured this would help neutralize the Krauthammer smell. After reading both pieces however it occurred to me that there was a significant relationship between them.

From Krauthammer, ”…. The Iraq war will end, as will the Bush presidency. But the larger conflict that defines our times - war on Islamic radicalism, more politely known as the war on terror - will continue, as the just-foiled London airliner plot unmistakably reminds us. And the reflexive anti-war sentiments underlying Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut will prove disastrous for the Democrats in the long run - the long run beginning as early as November '08.”

Compare that to this from Robinson, ” The revelation Thursday of the elaborate plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean with liquid explosives reminds us of the real threats we face - as opposed to the phantom threats that George W. Bush and Tony Blair have conjured to justify their disastrous war in Iraq.”

This pretty well sets up what many of us have been saying for these almost four years of Iraqi occupation. The Bush Administration and the neo-cons will continue to win the “stronger on defense” argument so long as they are allowed to maintain the link between Iraq and the so-called War on Terror. The Democrats must continue what they started in the House last month when they stood united (except for 42 defectors) to say they were severing that linkage.

In 2004, George W. criticized John Kerry for correctly labeling the “war on terror” as a police action rather than a military endeavor. Kerry backed down; or, at the very least, did not make the case very well. Yet, as we have seen time after time since September 11th, any major successes in thwarting terrorist activities or capturing suspected perpetrators has come as the result of good police work on the part of the intelligence communities and not by the brute force of a couple hundred thousand troops. Quite to the contrary, the effect of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been to increase the potential number of future terrorists we will need to concern ourselves with later.

While Krauthammer and Karl Rove will do what they can to spin the recent primary win of Ned Lamont into some sort of leading indicator of an oncoming Democratic pacifist movement, the Democrats need to be taking the argument to the voters that, by placing more emphasis on better intelligence and less on “nation building”, we are the party that will best protect America. To do this however, we need to come to grips as a party that the time to leave Iraq is now so that the Iraqis can get to the business of putting their country back together and America can re-enter the world community as peacemaker rather than antogonist. We need to incorporate the words of Eugene Robinson into the political debate:

"Maybe the discovery of the airliner plot will bring us back to the real world. There are deadly enemies out there, and one way to fight them, as the British demonstrated Thursday, is through intelligence. One way not to fight them, as the Bush administration continues to demonstrate, is through reckless military action that may kill terrorists but also kills innocent civilians, and thus creates a new generation of terrorists - doubtless including some bright young man or woman who will come up with a new idea for downing civilian airliners.

We will end up boarding our flights barefoot, barehanded and buck naked except for a hospital gown they'll make us put on at the airport."

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue