What BUSH Doesn't Get About the War on Terror

This is a sequel of sorts to a diary I posted a few months back, titled "What don't we get about the war on terror?"  (Hey, I like the echo even if it's a little off.) It's also a response to what seems to be (link goes to an excellent diary by "republicansforkerry") on what may be the new Republican smear attack on John Kerry - distorting his quote in the New York Times magazine in which he says:

 "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

What follows are some of my thoughts on why Bush supporters and Kerry supporters seem to be living on different planets as far as dealing with the "war on terror," and why I'm deeply enraged about the implication from the GOP that, in effect, terrorists should be the focus of our lives.  They can ask me to support their candidate; they do not have the right to demand that I accept their worldview.

You will hear GOP supporters and Bush himself constantly referring to a "pre 9/11 mentality" and insisting that 9/11 changed everything.  To these people, since 9/11 we have been locked in an epic struggle of good vs evil and in a clash of civilizations.  Once this mentality becomes your mentality (and don't they wish we'd all believe it!), your whole frame of reference has shifted.  Your frame of reference has become, "We are locked in an epic war with no end in sight," and you have to support the guy who "gets it."  To you, the other candidate - Kerry - doesn't even realize the nature of the conflict, and by definition will be unable to lead it or win it.

What this talk about a "mentality" and not understanding the "fundamental nature" of the war on terror means.. bluntly.. is that the Bush administration is purposely scaring the living shit out of the American people in order to force us to accept a political science theory.  Suddenly, it's not our freedoms that matter, it's that "terrorists hate freedom."  Suddenly, it's not about who we are, but that terrorists "hate us for who we are."  Suddenly we are supposed to obsess over an "ideology of hate" instead of getting down to business and shoring up homeland security.

The GOP is pushing this theory hard by distorting Kerry's remarks and parsing them to make it sound like Kerry wouldn't fight terrorism effectively.  This works for their audience; they're saying Kerry doesn't "get" the war on terror and trying to make people believe Kerry can't or won't stop terrorism.  But all they're really saying is that Kerry doesn't accept their theory of perpetual, epic war.  The entire point is to make Kerry unacceptable as a commander in chief because he doesn't "understand the fundamental nature of the war on terror."  

Furthermore, the Bush campaign depends on pushing their theory on the rest of us by constantly, constantly talking like we should all be living in fear of an amorphous, ill-defined, yet omnipresent enemy.  That's what happens when your "war on terror" is part and parcel of a larger theoretical framework.. and when you run a campaign by claiming the other guy wouldn't protect the country because he doesn't believe your theory.  

It makes me angry.  This is the United States of America and George W Bush has a theory: he wants the United States of America to be defined by terrorism.  It doesn't matter that he means to define it in opposition to terrorism.  What matters is that this gives terrorism a strength it wouldn't and shouldn't otherwise have.  So if you want to redefine yourself through an entire mentality based on terrorism, to live in fear of terrorism and to worry yourself sick over what terrorists want and to care about their alleged "ideology," vote for Bush, by all means.  

I would love to hear a solid, smart defense of the approach that says "we have to make it so that we don't CARE about terrorists."  In my opinion, it is the job of the government and the commander in chief to ensure that we the people don't care about the aims and goals of terrorism, any more than we care about the aims and goals of common criminals.  All we need to do is to be reasonably smart about our personal safety, and let the special ops, the military, and law enforcement handle the rest.  But we as a society shouldn't be asking the question of what terrorists want so we can go and do just the opposite, instead of being ourselves and being free.  We shouldn't be worrying about what terrorists want and living in constant fear.  There should only be this promise from our leaders: terrorists will be stopped.  Period.

So I believe the fundamental nature of the war on terror is that the American way of life cannot, should not, and will not be changed by terrorism or fear of terrorism.  

Otherwise, it's welcome to the terrordome, people.  What the Bush administration is really demanding through this constant refrain of fear, fear, fear, war, war, war, is that we the American people change our fundamental beliefs about what this country stands for and how we view the world, that we reduce ourselves to being one half of a polarized world in which you're either with George Bush or with the terrorists.  That, to me, is deeply offensive.  No president has the right to demand that.  

 

•  Exactly

  Recommended diary. I think this gets to the heart of this election. Its between people who believe fighting terrorism should be America's national mission - virtually to the exclusion of all else, and if something else "gets in the way," it needs to be subordinated to what in the end might serve the greater goal of fighting the War on Terror. and people who believe things like democracy and the Constitution are more important. Its a choice: do you believe we are engaged in a new Cold War (Democratic position) or something more like World War II (Republican position)?

  Ben P

  by Ben P on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 11:49:26 PM PDT

  •  Thanks

    I hope it's a good stab at what's going on here with all this "they don't GET it" talk.

    I am stunned that we have to fight to hold an argument between several equally legitimate points of view, while the other side is trying to make the issue, "You MUST ACCEPT our mentality OR ELSE."

    I wish the media would step back and ask themselves how much of this mentality they've accepted.  It's great fun to make up splash pages and funky TV  graphics framing current events within the greater War on Terror, of course.  So where's our splash-page action movie theory?  Is that what it takes?  Is it Team America: World Police?  :)

    by daria g on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 11:56:09 PM PDT

  •  And thanks for the recommend

    I worked hard on this diary.  It was hard work!

    I really like Kerry's stories (more of those please!) about living in Berlin during the start of the Cold War.  They resonate with a lot of people - including Republicans, I think - and offer a fascinating piece of personal history to boot.  

    by daria g on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:21:54 AM PDT

•  Excellent diary.

  Indeed, living in fear is utterly destructive not only to health and happiness, but also to the economy.  Clinton didn't scare us when terrorists tried to attack us, he simply protected us.  After the lucky catch of Rassam at the border, Clinton rolled up the entire LAX millenium plot -- everyone involved in it -- in 2 weeks.  Bush had Moussoui for over a month before 9/11 and look what happened.  Police states require fear, and make no mistake about it, Bush is after a one party police state.  Bush doesn't give a rat's a** about democracy or the public good.

  by eyeswideopen on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 11:52:21 PM PDT

•  I realize it is naive, but...

  ...what I had hoped for, as soon after 9/11 as possible, is, of course an impossible set of outcomes with BushCo in charge.

  I had hoped we would be more 'open', more committed than ever to 'due process', more insistent on not 'profiling', more ready to cooperate internationally among the various intelligence operations, more demanding of rigorous cooperation among our own intelligence agencies....

  In other words, it seemed that 9/11 was the ideal moment to be all of the very best things represented by the Bill of Rights and the leadership trajectory we had established in the world.

  Instead, with the likes of Cheney, Ashcroft, Rove, Wolfie and that fanatical bunch of neocons, we have witnessed a galvanizing of those more than eager to destroy our true core values -- and I'm not referring to the Islamic fundamentalists -- I'm referring to the largest threat, ever, to our Nation.

  The enemy is truly within and you get a very clear picture of 'what you see is what you get' in the Bush/Cheney performances during the 'debates.  

  'Four more years' MUST NOT HAPPEN.
  

  by understandinglife on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 11:52:59 PM PDT

  •  I don't think it's naive

    I think you believe in what's best about this country.  I was walking around the shop early this evening feeling just sick at heart over what's happened to us since 9/11..

    I almost think this is the worst, the most grave offense committed by George W Bush and his administration.  Most people, I believe, do have a longing for national unity, for moving beyond the shouting and shrillness and partisan anger and potshots - but then along came this entire Bushworld with-us-or-against-us mentality, and suddenly everywhere I turn I feel such despair at being talked about like my views don't matter at all simply because I don't support the president.  

    It's to the point where I turn on the TV and just feel personally wounded when I hear Chris Matthews say things like, "the American people LIKE George W Bush."  Am I not American?

    by daria g on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:03:06 AM PDT

    •  Right there with you...

      ...and the only remedy is for each of us to do everything possible to ensure that Kerry receives the largest landslide victory in the history of the USA.

      And, then, we each gather and express to the world our daily commitment to 'never again' -- never, ever will we allow any faction to wrap themselves in the flag for the purpose of destroying our Bill of Rights and, in the process, the hope of all those billions of people who look to us for guidance, compassion and inspiration.

      by understandinglife on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:55:31 AM PDT

•  There is no war on terror

  You mean the war on Al Qaeda.

  by Lucian on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:03:56 AM PDT

•  It isn't only a matter of what Republicans

  believe, but what independents and swing voters believe, and on this most important point they are firmly with the Bush administration's stated objectives in the so-called war on terror (democratization and liberalization of the Arab world), even if they have grave misgivings about the way Bush has handled (which is of course to say mishandled) the war in Iraq.

  My fear all along has been that as smart as most Democrats are, they simply do not grasp the shift in the tectonic political plates in America after 9/11, and the extent to which the "war on terror" has become the new organizing principle in American politics. This type of argument - however reasonable I might find it - only confirms that fear.

  At some point Democrats are going to need to come to terms with the fact that the threat of radical Islamism will be the central issue in American political life for some time, and Americans will not accept liberal internationalism as a foreign policy (which at best amounts to a policy of containment, rather than a strategy for defeating the threat of Islamo fascism) in this brave new world. Democrats either need to become the party of a more ethical neoconservatism (the party of liberal hawks, as they were under FDR and during the initial decades of the cold war, until the post-Johnson era), or they need to become a neo-Taftian party of practical isolationism (vis a vis the Muslim world), pushing total energy indepedence, a unilateral withdrawal from the Muslim world (no more bases, embassies - anything), and strict controls on Muslim immigration. There is no third way.

  by spot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:21:43 AM PDT

  •  Well maybe

    You've been pushing this line for ages now, and I'm skeptical of its veracity. I don't think people do buy this perception of the world to the extent you think they do: the polling tends to confirm this - look at the internals from Democracy Corps, which are some of the most detailed WoT polls you have.

    Where we are right now is about where this country was in 1952. I think people are going to look back on this era as like the McCarthy era. The crusading fervor has already started to subside, and will become more so when the reality of Iraq sinks in further and further.

    People will not sacrifice what is needed for the neocon agenda: the draft is STRONGLY opposed (upwards of 90% opposition) and Bush IS NOT GOING TO RAISE TAXES. Its not in the GOP's blood. If Bush does, he will set the GOP back several election cycles at least. The GOP's domestic strategy is predicated on tax cuts over all else. People like Grover Norquist and Karl Rove are more important in GOP electoral politics than the neocons, who have already been somewhat marginalized by the Iraq fiasco. Ultimately, when push comes to shove, winning elections is what matters to a Rove-driven GOP, and tax cuts are a crucial part of this strategy, probably second only to Bush's foreign policy as an electoral gambit.

    Also, your proposition that we are moving towards an era of cenralization and univeralism is not credible. Iraq will not survive as an singular entity for one: case in point, read the recent statement about the poltiical ambitions of the Kurds (in Spencer Ackerman's blog at TNR). See Filkins article in the NYTimes today about a potential Sunni boycott of the elections.

    I see very little evidence we are moving towards a kind of authoritarian, centralized world, except perhaps in Russia and the US - and even here there are obvious countercurrents (ie red state/blue state divide) and various break-away minority groups (Chechnya, for example).

    And if you do happen to be right, so what? If things get bad in the US, I'll leave the country.

    Ben P

    by Ben P on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:48:30 AM PDT

    •  Moo.

      "You've been pushing this line for ages now, and I'm skeptical of its veracity. I don't think people do buy this perception of the world to the extent you think they do: the polling tends to confirm this - look at the internals from Democracy Corps, which are some of the most detailed WoT polls you have."

      A strong majority of Americans still prefer George Bush to John Kerry on national security and the so-called war on terror. Democrats would be wise to read this disparity quite literally. Bush's Iraq numbers have fallen, but that has everything to do with tactical incompetence, rather than his grand strategy.

      "People will not sacrifice what is needed for the neocon agenda: the draft is STRONGLY opposed (upwards of 90% opposition) and Bush IS NOT GOING TO RAISE TAXES."

      Wait until the next major attack on American soil. A general draft will be reinstated (no matter who is in the White House), and while there will almost certainly be some civil unrest as a result, it will not be like the Vietnam era. (Incidentally, given the likelihood that we are on the verge of a major political realignment, and given the fact that civil and social unrest has accompanied every previous major political realignment in American history, it is likely we will begin to see unrest even before the draft is reinstated.)

      "Also, your proposition that we are moving towards an era of cenralization and univeralism is not credible. Iraq will not survive as an singular entity for one: case in point, read the recent statement about the poltiical ambitions of the Kurds (in Spencer Ackerman's blog at TNR). See Filkins article in the NYTimes today about a potential Sunni boycott of the elections."

      My position is that we are either entering a new period of centralization, or a period of further and deeper fragmentation (that will likely end in the breakup of nation-states around the world along cultural, ethnic, sectarian, religious, lines etc.) You're right to suggest that Iraq is an historical fiction that has been held together by brutality, but either the Sunni insurgency is going to be successfully crushed, and the Kurds cajoled and disciplined into curtailing their separatist impulses, and both accept Shiite rule in Baghdad, or the whole enterprise is going to fall apart, resulting in chaos, civil war, and the fragmentation of the country along ethnic, religious, and sectarian lines  - with very serious implications regionally, and globally. The point though is that no one really knows which way this thing
      is going to go, and until we do Bush's vision wins with a majority of Americans.

      "And if you do happen to be right, so what?  If things get bad in the US, I'll leave the country."

      That's fine, but clearly not everyone will be leaving the country. If I am right, and we are entering a period of centralization, Democrats will need to reinvent themselves as the party of FDR, pushing populism at home and a Wilsonian idealist (read: liberal hawk interventionist) policy abroad. If they want to want to be an effective minority party, and put the brakes on the inevitable rollback of economic freedoms, civil liberties, and freedom of expression that will come with this type of era, they need to reivent themselves as a neo-Taftian party of isolationism. And if they really want nothing to do with it all theres always secession and civil war.
      

      by spot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:09:08 AM PDT

      •  Your assumption

        of WHY people prefer Bush, however, I'm not so sure. There is no doubt a majority of the population prefer Republicans on foreign policy. But why? My sense is because of one simple line: people believe, as Bush says repeatedly he will do, that Republicans are more likely "to hit the terrorists before they hit us" and that the GOP will be quicker to pull the trigger. I don't think it has very much to do with think-tank foreign policy visions, but fundamental, visceral sense that Rs are "tougher." Hence, Iraq becomes unpopular, but people still trust the Rs more, because they trust that they'll pull the trigger while Dems might hesitate. Its like what Tom Friedman said in the lead up to Iraq in 2003: people supported the invasion because Afghanistan didn't "seem like enough": not because of WMDs, and not because of a greater middle east "democratization project." Its more about simple school yard fighting, not geopolitics.

        Ben P

        by Ben P on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:16:34 AM PDT

        •  I disagree. I'm not suggesting that Americans

          routinely tune in to cspan coverage of AEI conferences, but Democrats are glossing over the fact that Bush is offering them the hope of long-term victory in the "war on terror" through the democratization and liberalization of the Arab world. The Democrats are offering only the prospect of working with our European and Arab allies to contain the threat, and shore up our defenses at home. This is not a small distinction.

          by spot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:35:22 AM PDT

          •  Maybe you're right

            I can't say that you aren't. I only hope that people can see through the fool's gold the neocons are offering - I have the audacity to hope even if I am wrong, which I probably am in the short run. You are right that what the GOP offers answers fears in a way that what the Dems have doesn't. And in this, I think the Dems are fundamentally much more realistic about how terrorism operates. This is because I think their (the neocons, the Bush administration) strategy for fighting terrorism is stuck in a model that provides primacy to nation-states when nation-states are becoming less and less important because of technology, economic change, cultural change, etc. See books like Phillip Bobbitt's "Achilles Shield" or David Harvey's "The Condition of Postmodernity." Indeed, the very regions where terrorism flourishes are those where enlightenment, eurocentric nation-statism has failed - that was what the whole 20th century was about in some ways - and what terrorism is a reaction to. You are going to defeat it by going back to the age of imperialism and trying to impose these models again - why would the Middle East/Africa, etc. be any more amenable to Eurocentric models today than it was in, say, 1919. Indeed, reading David Fromkin's book ("The War to End All Wars") is particularly depressing in this regard, as the same crap is happening again. It is like the AEI scholars learned nothing from the past century.

            Fundamentally, though, they are wrong, because they want to wish away cultural difference and an ugly colonial history and suggest that enemy we face today is just like say Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union without any of the extremely important contextual and historical elements I have mentioned.

            Ben Pr

            by Ben P on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:50:08 AM PDT

            •  You make good points.

              "See books like Phillip Bobbitt's "Achilles Shield" or David Harvey's "The Condition of Postmodernity." Indeed, the very regions where terrorism flourishes are those where enlightenment, eurocentric nation-statism has failed - that was what the whole 20th century was about in some ways - and what terrorism is a reaction to. You are going to defeat it by going back to the age of imperialism and trying to impose these models again - why would the Middle East/Africa, etc."

              To be fair though, its not that Enlightenment has failed in the middle east, but rather that the people of the region (and the broader Arab and Muslim world) have never had the opportunity for democratic self-governance. Enlightenment values are certainly tied to a strong central government, but not the kinds of monarchies, and Arab nationalist dictatorships that have existed in the middle east for decades.

              I haven't the slightest idea if the neocnoservative crusade will succeed in establishing liberal democracies in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world, but it seems more than possible, if not likely, that the people of the Arab world may well not elect the kind of client governments the neocons imagine they will. Furthermore, as I said in that diary a few days ago, it also seems quite possible if not likely that one of the ironic byproducts of this whole enterprise could be the end of Israel, and the establishment of a single state with equal rights and protections for both Jews and Palestenians. Seeing the look on Bill Kristol and Richard Perles faces if that happens would also be worth the price of carrying this whole policy to its logical conclusion.

              by spot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:10:52 AM PDT

        •  The GOP is not of course levelling with

          the American people about the costs of this enterprise, in lives, dollars, and liberties.

          by spot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:38:09 AM PDT

      •  I should also add

        that you are right about the effect of another major terrorist strike on US soil. That could have the kind of effect you suggest, perhaps probably so. Another 9/11 is a very disturbing prospect, for all kinds of reasons. But as an individual, I cannot personally advocate a foreign policy position just because of poltical expedience. I think the Bush approach is badly wrong, and will not solve the "terrorist problem" and will only inflict misery on the world in its attempt to graft fighting terrorism to a preexisting frankly imperialistic agenda.

        Ben P

        by Ben P on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:30:40 AM PDT

  •  Aha, now we have an argument

    Thanks for the reply.  

    No, I don't grasp a complete shift in political tectonics, although it might be more accurate to say that I don't accept it as inevitable or necessary.  Perhaps it is simply the case that most Americans will respond positively to the notion of standing up for democratic values and supporting the growth of democracy in other nations.  I do.  I seriously doubt that bringing democracy through war and shock therapy will prove to be effective and I think Kerry's got it right when he speaks of using all the tools at hand including diplomacy..

    I don't mean to diminish the threat of radical Islamism but I do question whether we need to redefine ourselves as a nation in opposition to that threat and to live in constant fear of it. I think the accompanying fear element used so adeptly by the Bush administration makes us weaker in the face of this threat, and that we set a better example and are stronger as a democracy if we operate outside that shadow of fear.  I'm not a foreign policy wonk in the least but the dynamic seems to be that we are dealing with non-state actors who are in fact helped in their recruitment efforts and financing by the chaos we've created in Iraq and our disengagement from other conflicts in the Middle East.    

    I haven't settled on precisely which direction I think we should take.  Frankly I don't think the right has either because I find Bush's approach incoherent and unsuccessful thus far.

    by daria g on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:00:37 AM PDT

    •  The fact that Americans have a greater risk

      of being struck dead by lighting, or a stray satellite, than dying in an Islamo fascist attack on American soil is irrelevant. If Democrats wish to remain politicaly relevant, they need at some point to accept the fact that they're just not going to be able to convince the American people to accept the idea that Islamist terrorism is inevitable, and that the best we can do is work with our allies and Arab regimes to curb the threat, and shore up our defenses at home.

      The reason that Americans continue to side with Bush and his fellow neocons is that at least their vision offers the hope of defeating the radical Islamist menace by transforming the political and economic landscape of the Arab world - however great the cost in lives and dollars may be in the near term. As long as the Democrats remain liberal internationalists, they can offer the American people no such hope.

      A huge part of the reason that the neocons have focused on allegedly terror sponsoring states is that they're the low hanging fruit, as it were. It is much easier to sell a crusade to democratize Iraq or Syria, given their thuggish leadership and the alleged threat they pose(d) to the region than it is to justify an invasion of Saudi Arabia or Egpyt, despite the fact that both have much more American blood on their hands.

      by spot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:30:49 AM PDT

      •  I get that..

        I do agree that what is hurting Democrats is the inability to offer a visionary, hopeful alternative to Bush's worldview.  

        I suppose I see a shade of it in Kerry's emphasis on rebuilding alliances and maybe he should talk more clearly and idealistically about what it means - as he says - for the United States to "lead the world."  How to say it.. the United States as a leader of the democratic nations of the world, as an inspiration really, while Bush's view is more.. the United States all alone, starting wars.

        It was curious how he implied repeatedly that all Kerry wanted was for the United States to be "popular," and then repeated the "naive and dangerous" comment, as if Democrats are comparative children in this game which is currently played by the serious adults (who know what's what) aka Bush/Cheney.  There needs to be a good counter to this charge.

        by daria g on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:49:20 AM PDT

      •  Also.. you forget..

        Bush didn't sell the war, though, as a way to defeat radical Islam by transforming the Arab world - he sold it on the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.  

        There was a fundamental betrayal of trust with both the world community and the American people right there, at the outset of this 'crusade.'  That is very, very serious and cannot be repaired easily or quickly, and certainly undermines any grand plan Bush and the neocons might have had as far as changing the region.  Who will believe them now, when they deceived us all from Day 1?  It does make Bush unfit to lead this nation.  Kerry was right in that you do not change the rationale for a war after the fact.  Had Bush successfully sold the war on the premises you give, it would be a different story.

        by daria g on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:57:47 AM PDT

        •  Yes

          But I think the larger problem is with the world community, not the American people. Bush may end up winning this election and not paying a heavy (electoral) price.

          However, the damage the US has done to its ability to operate effectively on the world stage is very large. Very large. The US has virtually no credibility, even in countries like Britain. Their ability to use military force has been severely circumscribed by Iraq.

          Ben P

          by Ben P on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:00:38 AM PDT

        •  That's definitely true, or at least he didn't

          offer the promise of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Arab world as the primary reason for invading Iraq. And you can be certain that if he had done so, congress and the American people would've balked. If he is reelected, and is able to turn Iraq around, and onto the path of liberal democracy, a majority of Americans will forgive him for his deceptions. But if the Iraq war fails you can be sure that the deceptions on which it was based will be the least of our worries. You can expect instability to spread throughout the region, and elsewhere, possibly even here at home, with the culture war potentially metastasizing into something worse.

          by spot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:22:03 AM PDT

        •  My point is that what is happening in Iraq

          does very much have the potential of destablizing other gulf states, particularly if the situation on the ground worsens. If the House of Saud were to fall, and oil supplies from the region were severely curtailed, or interrupted, huge swaths of America are a week away from being plunged into the nineteenth century. In a country as politically divided as ours, this could be a very, very bad thing.

          by spot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:28:30 AM PDT

          •  Yes, it does

            The flagrant disregard the neocons seem to have for this very possibility just blows my mind.  I won't be sorry to see the House of Saud go, mind you, but not if the alternative is chaos.  Actually, on second thought, a little inspiration some of them have taken from the nutty Italian Futurists leads me to suspect they welcome chaos as a sort of cleansing force that eventually makes the world a better place.  I really wish these guys had taken to doing bad performance art instead of testing their grand aesthetic theories while using the Middle East as a stage.

            More of this and I'ma start stocking up on canned goods and bottled water.  Also, off topic but I have a feeling huge swaths of America are about to find themselves in deep financial trouble when they try to pay for heating oil this winter.  

            by daria g on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:35:05 AM PDT

            •  Meow.

              "The flagrant disregard the neocons seem to have for this very possibility just blows my mind."

              But Americans are generally very pragmatic. If the story ends well, it just won't matter very much to them that it began under false pretenses. Sad but true. With few exceptions, Americans just don't like to obsess about the past.

              "Actually, on second thought, a little inspiration some of them have taken from the nutty Italian Futurists leads me to suspect they welcome chaos as a sort of cleansing force that eventually makes the world a better place."

              Oh no, you're right. They're all about "creative destruction."

              "More of this and I'ma start stocking up on canned goods and bottled water."

              I've always wanted to live in an igloo. If global warming hasn't melted everything maybe I'll get my chance.

              "Also, off topic but I have a feeling huge swaths of America are about to find themselves in deep financial trouble when they try to pay for heating oil this winter."

              Financial trouble this winter and beyond, and not just because of oil prices. The housing market is poised to collapse across the western world in the next couple of years, equities are overinflated (again), and America is at some point (probably sooner than later) going to face a serious debt and currency crisis. Things are going to get much worse before they get better.    
              

              by spot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:57:06 AM PDT

      •  I have to say

        I do enjoy exchanging ideas with you. I think you capture an important visceral reason for Bush's continued at least partial success as a candidate. However, I suspect that this fools gold vision of finding easy countries to invade and attempting to democratize them will not prove to be popular strategy, say 10 years from now, because I don't think it has much chance of success.

        The neocons think we can fight Islamic terrorism like we could fight Communism or Nazism, but we can't. The problem is is that terrorism stems from weak states, not strong ones. In this sense, Saddam Hussein would almost be a desireable kind of leader in that his "presidency" (or whatever it was) flowed from a Eurocentric, enlightenment model of the nation-state and modernization, much in the way that Nasser's Egypt did. His is the end of the era. What will emerge in Iraq will most likely be more amenable to Islamic fanaticism than Hussein's regime. People like Al-Sadr are more the future than not, I suspect.

        by Ben P on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:57:52 AM PDT

        •  Thank you.

          I enjoy chatting with you as well. You're quite a smart person.

          " However, I suspect that this fools gold vision of finding easy countries to invade and attempting to democratize them will not prove to be popular strategy, say 10 years from now, because I don't think it has much chance of success."

          That's a very compelling point. I have no idea how this is all going to play out, but there is the real possibility me thinks that the conflict could begin to spill out over the borders into neighboring states, and that will be the pretext for America becoming militarily involved with said states.

          "The neocons think we can fight Islamic terrorism like we could fight Communism or Nazism, but we can't."

          Well of course the neoconservative strategy of radical democratic interventionism worked against Nazism, but was a miserable failure in the cold war (although of course America defeated Germany in a total war, rather than the kind of relatively "polite" war we've waged in Iraq to date).

          "In this sense, Saddam Hussein would almost be a desireable kind of leader in that his "presidency" (or whatever it was) flowed from a Eurocentric, enlightenment model of the nation-state and modernization, much in the way that Nasser's Egypt did. His is the end of the era. What will emerge in Iraq will most likely be more amenable to Islamic fanaticism than Hussein's regime. People like Al-Sadr are more the future than not, I suspect."

          There shouldn't be any question that the failure of Arab nationalism in all its forms (including Baathism) to liberate the people of the Arab world from their sense of historical grievance and humiliation (not to mention provide them with a decent standard of living) has played a central role in creating the Islamist monster in the Arab world, but that's not to say that any Arab government in the last century has been a model for enlightenment liberal democracy. Some have introduced certain aspects of modernity, but all have lacked the best that enlightenment has to offer - political, economic, and cultural freedom.

          by spot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:09:10 AM PDT

        •  PS A good argument against the whole

          centralization cum populist wave is Germany (and no doubt other western European countries soon):

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1324934,00.html

          by spot on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 04:02:12 AM PDT