Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:51 pm
That was interesting. But I disagree with the premise. I don't think the actions of George Bush or John Kerry will create more or less terrorists. Unless one of them has secret plans to:
a) Let Israel be wiped from the earth.
b) End the world's dependence of MidEast Oil, and therefore our interests in that region (they'd also have to find a way to make the world forget how to make a nuclear weapon).
However, I disagree with the article's subtle indictment of John Kerry and lauding of George W. Bush. I'll take it on point by point.
* It claims that, "Prior to George W. Bush, American policy towards Islamic extremism was basically one of malign neglect." This should actually read "prior to September 11th, 2001..." since George W. Bush was following the exact same policy towards Islamic extremism prior to September 11th. Read some of Richard Clark, the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush anti-terrorism czar.
* "America's war on terrorism is helping recruit many new terrorists. Maybe, maybe not. There's no proof either way." I agree with this 100%. How do we know whether it is or isn't? We don't. I also agree that America's previous policy of being soft on terrorists was helping them recruit. But I would like to point out the Bush policy on Somalia is IDENTICAL if not worse than Clinton's. He is ignoring Somalia completely. But the salient point here is correct--being soft on terrorism, probably helps them recruit.
* "Under Ehud Barak--the Israeli Bill Clinton / John Kerry." This is just propaganda. John Kerry is not Bill Clinton. No more than George W. Bush is Ronald Reagan. But yes, since Ariel Sharon began open war against Palestinians the terrorist attacks have dropped, but that's more because Terrorism is a peacetime activity. During wartime, attacks on civilians is called war. This line I particularly like: "It seems possible--maybe even obvious!--that terrorist recruiting also suffered." This is a claim that the piece itself is trying to refute.
I agree with his conclusion that there is no way to know whether our current policy is creating more or less terrorists.
He is failing to recognize the obvious though when he refutes that "there is something about Islamism that causes its adherents to be less-than-rational actors." Suicide Bombers. Suicide Bombers! How more "less-than-rational" do they need to be.
I think you have my opinion confused with someone else's. We should absolutely be in Iraq. I don't care if he ever had Weapons of Mass Destruction, although I believe Saddam certainly would have built a nuke if we ignored/let him. Being in Iraq puts the men and women the United States trains, pays and equips to kill within fighting reach of the folks that want to kill Americans. That's why the September the 11th happened. They wanted to fight Americans but had no way to get here. So as they asked, and as so many others have asked in the past, we brought the fight to them. I just think that John Kerry: as a man who has lead men in combat under fire, as a smarter man, as a more effective leader would be better at fighting it. I think the domestic "costs" that the nation is paying to have Pres. Bush run the war is too high. His domestic policy even Nixon would be embarassed to push. I mean come on, letting coal plants create more pollution? Who the hell would advocate that for the public good?
a) Let Israel be wiped from the earth.
b) End the world's dependence of MidEast Oil, and therefore our interests in that region (they'd also have to find a way to make the world forget how to make a nuclear weapon).
However, I disagree with the article's subtle indictment of John Kerry and lauding of George W. Bush. I'll take it on point by point.
* It claims that, "Prior to George W. Bush, American policy towards Islamic extremism was basically one of malign neglect." This should actually read "prior to September 11th, 2001..." since George W. Bush was following the exact same policy towards Islamic extremism prior to September 11th. Read some of Richard Clark, the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush anti-terrorism czar.
* "America's war on terrorism is helping recruit many new terrorists. Maybe, maybe not. There's no proof either way." I agree with this 100%. How do we know whether it is or isn't? We don't. I also agree that America's previous policy of being soft on terrorists was helping them recruit. But I would like to point out the Bush policy on Somalia is IDENTICAL if not worse than Clinton's. He is ignoring Somalia completely. But the salient point here is correct--being soft on terrorism, probably helps them recruit.
* "Under Ehud Barak--the Israeli Bill Clinton / John Kerry." This is just propaganda. John Kerry is not Bill Clinton. No more than George W. Bush is Ronald Reagan. But yes, since Ariel Sharon began open war against Palestinians the terrorist attacks have dropped, but that's more because Terrorism is a peacetime activity. During wartime, attacks on civilians is called war. This line I particularly like: "It seems possible--maybe even obvious!--that terrorist recruiting also suffered." This is a claim that the piece itself is trying to refute.
I agree with his conclusion that there is no way to know whether our current policy is creating more or less terrorists.
He is failing to recognize the obvious though when he refutes that "there is something about Islamism that causes its adherents to be less-than-rational actors." Suicide Bombers. Suicide Bombers! How more "less-than-rational" do they need to be.
I think you have my opinion confused with someone else's. We should absolutely be in Iraq. I don't care if he ever had Weapons of Mass Destruction, although I believe Saddam certainly would have built a nuke if we ignored/let him. Being in Iraq puts the men and women the United States trains, pays and equips to kill within fighting reach of the folks that want to kill Americans. That's why the September the 11th happened. They wanted to fight Americans but had no way to get here. So as they asked, and as so many others have asked in the past, we brought the fight to them. I just think that John Kerry: as a man who has lead men in combat under fire, as a smarter man, as a more effective leader would be better at fighting it. I think the domestic "costs" that the nation is paying to have Pres. Bush run the war is too high. His domestic policy even Nixon would be embarassed to push. I mean come on, letting coal plants create more pollution? Who the hell would advocate that for the public good?
