Crossed at Tondee's Tavern.
Some analysts, particularly on the right, are claiming that Barack Obama didn't answer one of the national security questions very well during last week's debate. Regardless of your position on Obama the candidate, this viewpoint deserves some attention.
When asked how he would respond to a terrorist attack on American cities, Obama responded with the usual platitudes but did not say specifically that he would retaliate against the terrorists.
This evaluation of Obama's answer is fundamentally flawed and shows one of the deep divisions between the left and right.
Here was the question and answer:
Question:
"If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists," Williams said, "and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?"
Answer:
"Well, first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans," Obama said. "And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack."
"The second thing," Obama continued, "is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network."
Obama's strength is being questioned because allegedly "one gets the impression that Obama doesn't have much to say about the national security of the Republic, at least partially because he hasn't thought very much about it." Obama's answer, as I interpret it, specified that (1) we should ensure that should disaster strike we have a competent force of first-responders; (2) use our intelligence to definitively determine who is responsible and whether additional threats exist in the immediate to short term, and (3) gain intelligence on the perpetrators so as to take action on said party.
Why--besides obvious political posturing--is this considered "weak on defense"? The 3-step approach is exactly what happened after the 9/11 attacks under the leadership of President Bush! Steps 1 and 2 took place the same day, and step 3 was implemented when we sent forces to Afghanistan.
As if following Bush's template from 9/11 isn't enough, it's telling to remember that the American people were still feeling and showing a sense of unity at that point because our actions were still an appropriate response to Osama Bin Laden. It's only after Bush became distracted by Iraq that our sense of unity was lost.
A very thought-provoking article appeared in the L.A. Times this weekend that put our response to 9/11 in an interesting light:
After 9/11, the Republican line was that all future terror attacks on U.S. soil must be prevented at any cost. That's the line Giuliani was parroting this week, but its effectiveness hinges on our collective willingness to let fear swamp our capacity to reason.
Contrast the Republican response to 9/11 with the Republican response to the Virginia Tech massacre. After the shootings, when many commentators suggested that we might consider tighter gun control regulations, most GOP leaders were outraged: The right to bear arms is sacred! The massacre didn't occur because guns are easy to obtain but because the shooter was mentally disturbed, and if he hadn't had access to guns, he'd have found some other way to kill people! No legislation can completely protect us against maniacs!
Why have we allowed ourselves to sacrifice our self-identity for a sense of security? Whether the sense of security is valid is another question; my concern here is that we've allowed ourselves to become a nation scared. Georgia's strong Republican base would never allow its guns to be taken, except from its cold dead hands. Why on earth would they allow themselves to be suckered by the mentality that says we can win against a shifting non-state entity primarily using military action, essentially suggesting that policy and military action can completely protect us against maniacs?
To continue the metaphor, after the shootings at VT, wasn't the immediate objective to comfort the wounded (first response) and to make sure other shooters weren't around? And had intelligence determined there were other shooters, to respond? Just like 9/11.