Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Terror Guy!

If you haven’t read the Edwards article in Foreign
Policy on the importance of reengaging the world make sure you do. It’s another argument for why Edwards scares the GOP. There are many good pieces in it, but I’ll start with an overview.

We need a new path, one that will lead to reengagement with the world and restoration of the United States’ moral authority in the community of nations. President Harry Truman once said, “No one nation alone can bring peace. Together, nations can build a strong defense against aggression and combine the energy of free men everywhere in building a better future for all.” For 50 years, presidents from Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton built strong alliances and deepened the world’s respect for us. We gained that respect by viewing our military strength not as an end in itself but as a means to protect a system of laws and institutions that gave hope to billions across the globe. In avoiding the temptation to rule as an empire, we hastened the fall of a corrupt and evil one in the Soviet Union. The lesson is that we cannot only be warriors; we must be thinkers and leaders as well.

However, when Edwards (video) gets beyond the basics and takes on the “global
war on terror,” you get into a foreign policy shift that doesn’t lend itself
to primary campaigns. That’s why, from the beginning, the most courageous campaign
on the issues has been John Edwards. He has the added value of being correct
about it, too. However, in order to have a full airing the Democratic candidates
would have to agree to debate the issue, which is difficult to get done when
candidates don’t want to envision the Republicans said – Democrats said argument
on the “global war on terror.” There is fear that voters would think
— wait for it — Democrats are soft because they don’t embrace the “global
war on terror” talking point, which has nothing to do with actually keeping America safe.

That’s the craven calculation of presidential politics, because when explained
in full and with the opportunity to come back and augment the discussion in
a full airing, the “global war on terror” talking point is not only
damaging to our foreign policy, but also to our actionable strategy. It’s also
a DLC type line that keeps Democrats debating on Republican turf. To continue
to win the national security argument Democrats have to craft out new territory
all our own. Edwards has done that in Foreign
Policy.

BEYOND THE “WAR ON TERROR” There is no question that we must confront terrorist groups such as al Qaeda with the full force of our military might. As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to apply the full extent of our security apparatus to protect our vital interests, take measures to root out terrorist cells, and strike swiftly and forcefully against those who seek to harm us. But I believe we must stay on the offensive against both terrorism and its causes. The “war on terror” approach has backfired, straining our military to the breaking point while allowing the threat of terrorism to grow. “War on terror” is a slogan designed for politics, not a strategy to make the United States safe. It is a bumper sticker, not a plan. Worst of all, the “war on terror” has failed. Instead of making the United States safer, it has spawned even more terrorism — as we have seen so tragically in Iraq — and left us with fewer allies. There is no question that we are less safe today as a result of this administration’s policies. The Bush administration has walked the United States right into the terrorists’ trap. By framing this struggle against extremism as a war, it has reinforced the jihadists’ narrative that we want to conquer the Muslim world and that there is a “clash of civilizations” pitting the West against Islam. From Guant�namo to Abu Ghraib, the “war on terror” has tragically become the recruitment poster al Qaeda wanted. Instead of reengaging with the peoples of the world, we have driven too many into the terrorists’ arms. In fact, defining the current struggle against radical Islamists as a war minimizes the challenge we face by suggesting that the fight against Islamist extremism can be won on the battlefield alone. For these reasons, many generals and national security experts have criticized the president’s “war on terror” approach. Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni has said that the “war on terror” is a counterproductive doctrine. So has the government of one of our closest allies; the new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has distanced himself from the term. Admiral William Fallon — President George W. Bush’s new chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) — has instructed his staff to stop saying that we are in a “long war.” These leaders know that we need substance, not slogans. … .. Reengaging the World

The generals have agreed for a very long time that the “global war on
terror” is counterproductive and misleading. Joint
Chiefs chairman Richard Meyers “objected to the use of the term
‘war on terrorism’ before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people
in uniform as being the solution.”

That hasn’t stopped Terror
Guy from using it against the America people to keep many in a fetal position,
paralyzed with fear.

John Edwards is in very good, even esteemed company when making the argument
against the “global war on terror” talking point. This argument goes
well beyond what to do in Iraq. It crafts out a whole new vision for our foreign
policy in the post Bush era. It also makes establishment types uncomfortable.
The problem is that Edwards just isn’t getting through and is stuck in neutral
right now. However, it is a progressive message that will live
on, because many of us have been writing about the “global war on terror” talking point for a very long time.

The “global war on terror” is a Republican talking point that the
DLC embraces, because they don’t want to fight Republicans in the arena of foreign
policy ideas and lay claim to a new path. Progressives want the fight. The people are hungry for it, but they’ve got to be shown the way, because the “global war on terror” has currently got them by the throat. That doesn’t mean they like it.