Liberal Lunacy on the ‘War on Terror’
17 June 2006 8:57 am by Taylor Marsh
Liberal Lunacy on the “War on Terror”
UPDATE: A father wants answers. Newly released under FOIA, a redated report on Abu Ghraib raises more questions..
 |
There are so many things wrong with Peter Beinart's recent
ramblings about Truman giving terrorists hell that it's hard to know where
to start.
However, this past Wednesday, I was at the New America Foundation in Washington,
D.C. to hear Chuck Peña, Christopher Preeble and Peter Bergen talk about
Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism. I wanted to share a post that Peña put up at
Steve Clemons' blog because it was part of the discussion I heard.
There is no way Democrats are going to win by going to the right of the Republicans,
whether it's trying to bring down al Qaeda, facing off with Iran, or achieving “victory” in Iraq. Frankly, I don't know why some want to try. Never mind
people are still unwilling to talk about Musharraf and Pakistan,
except EmptyWheel.
I finally figured out that nobody was listening. And forget that reality isn't keeping Hillary
Clinton from blathering on about staying the course in Iraq, only doing
it the Democratic way, whatever the hell that means.
Peña's global prescription may seem simple and stark for some, especially
when he talks about Darfur, which I'll explain another time, but progressives
must decide how we're going to define our priorities and our global outreach.
We also must quit letting Republicans define how we debate these issues.
Like so many other liberals, Beinart fails to recognize that the terrorist
threat represented by al Qaeda (now growing into a larger radical Islamic
movement) is not due to a lack of democracy in the Muslim world. Such failure
can only lead to failed policies. The reality is that Osama bin Laden has
been very clear about why he attacked America on 9/11: as a response to U.S.
policies, particularly in the Muslim world.The key to winning the war on terrorism, then, is not a liberal internationalist
version of neoconservatism or going back to the future by applying Truman
anti-totalitarian liberalism against the radical Islamic threat. Rather, what
is required is a real overhaul of U.S. foreign and national security policy
based on an understanding that U.S. interventionism is a root cause of anti-American
resentment in the Muslim world — which breeds hatred and becomes a steppingstone
to violence, including terrorism. Accordingly, the guiding principle for U.S.
policy should be to stop meddling in the internal affairs of countries and
regions around the world, except when they directly threaten U.S. national
security interests — i.e., when the territorial integrity, national sovereignty,
or liberty of the United States is at risk. This is especially true in the
Middle East and Muslim world.Chuck
Peña: Why Liberals (like Peter Beinart) Can't Win the War on Terror
Though nothing makes me crazier than when Republicans
regurgitate John F. Kennedy, it certainly doesn't stop them from doing it.
However, it doesn't make them the man, or illustrate they know anything about
what his words meant or understand the context in which they were said. The Republican leader in the House, John Boehner, tried for the Kennedy affect in his secret memo this week, which shows just how clueless they are on the issue, because quotes out of context mean nothing.
“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid
it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender,
or submission.” – John
F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy made this statement in his address to the nation during
the Cuban Missile Crisis, October 22, 1962.
The statement was made when there was a clear and present danger to this country,
off our southern shores. Kennedy would never have planned preemption. In fact,
during the Crisis he did everything to avoid a war, something Bush and the neocons
couldn't recognize if they watched it unfold in real time. Republicans don't
understand Kennedy at all, which is why his daughter, Caroline Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg, came out during 2004 and
asked Bush to stop referencing her father. They don't understand J.F.K. because
he was a man of peace first and foremost. A man who actually knew war and wanted
nothing to do with it, which cannot be said of the Republican chickenhawks now
swaggering towards the next kaboom.
Chuck Peña is correct. It's our policies, stupid.
