Centerfield

The war on terrorism - one centrist perspective

(Originally posted to CivicDialogues.org)

Last week I was following the comments on a post at Centerfield. One thing that was raised as an issue was whether a President John Kerry would have an effective approach to the war on terrorism. For example, 'bk' commented (excerpted, emphasis added):

My main worry with Kerry is that he has thus far been uncommitted to staying the course in Iraq. I expect he'll sail rightward after he sews things up, but there's really no reason to trust his resolve. I REALLY don't want the next President to go to Old Europe and APOLOGIZE for Bush, and go hat in hand to the UN and get very wishy-washy. I think it would be a mistake to go back to the old business as usual sabre-rattling without any follow-up.

That Kerry has suggested that terrorism should be approached as a "law enforcement" issue signals to me that he has no resolve. He's ready to let our enemies go back to hiding in the shadows while he gives forceful speeches at the UN that in the end come to nothing achieved. Kerry is the sort of guy that all his life has thought he was actually getting something done whenever he gave a talk to a room full of suits and got people to clap and nod their heads and say "here, here!"

Hearing the moral-system-of-the-right in those words, I expressed an opposing view (excerpted, emphasis added):

Having read some of the comments about Kerry and other Dems being 'soft' on terrorism, I gotta ask: Other than overthrowing the Taliban (where we let OBL get away -- probably because we trusted the locals too much instead of risking our own troops), how has the USE OF OUR MILITARY decreased the liklihood that hijackers will take over a plane tomorrow and fly it into a nuclear power plant?

I guess I keep seeing this gigantic disconnect between lashing out at governments with our military and actually preventing another 9-11 type of incident !!!

I'm not minimizing other forms that terrorism may take, but we need to (keep) and leverage our relationships with the world community to plug lots of little holes that are simply not visible on a military radar.

'Mark' responded this way (excerpted, emphasis added):

As for being quote "soft" unquote, it's clear to me that John Kerry perceives 9/11 as a really big and very violent criminal conspiracy. The emphasis will be on law enforcement; military force (it would seem) would rarely if ever be necessary for President Kerry. (And if I were cynical, I'd mention President Kerry seeking tacit blessings for any military strikes from Paris.)

I tend to see the GWOT as something that's going to take a really long time and it's going to have a lot of "hot" phases and cold phases. By implicitly (or at worst explicitly) taking the U.S. military off the table it seems to me, at least, that we're essentially tying an arm behind our back in a pretty dangerous world. That doesn't strike me as especially rational.

I'm not attempting to argue for or against the Iraq invasion (however one might define being 'for' or 'against'). But there is a larger issue here that most assuredly deserves close scrutiny by the electorate: What is the proper balance between the two approaches that those from the left and those from the right tend to embrace -- as if by instinct.

I put this on the back burner until I had the time to compose a dialogue that illustrate the conflicting assumptions of worldviews as they apply to this issue. I completed that task earlier today -- here.

The above is all a prelude to considering:

1) Why those on the left and right mistrust each other's instincts,

2) What contribution can a centrist perspective make on this topic, and

3) How George W. Bush and John Kerry reflect these worldviews.

Why the distrust?

The dialogue linked above illustrates the essential conflict between the moral-system-of-the-left (MSL) and the moral-system-of-the-right (MSR):

- The MSR assumes an us-versus-them division of the world. Indeed, the United States finds itself with the responsibility for waging this chapter of the ongoing battle between good and evil because we find ourselves on the top rung of the world's economic and power ladder, a position that the MSR assumes is deserved. There can be no compromise with evil in an always-dangerous, competitive world. Hit them before they hit us. You may be mistaken, but you'll be alive.

- The MSL assumes an increasingly interdependent world that challenges all nations to work together to solve economic and other conflicts that, if ignored, will diminish the well-being of all. Wealthy nations -- especially one as powerful as the United States -- must lead by example, making sure that our actions promote a better world for everyone. The world will respect us if we act in everyone's interest rather than in self-serving ways. This takes time, patience and cooperative effort, but in the long run we and future generations will be safer and lead more prosperous lives.

Each side sees the other through the lense of its own worldview:

- The right believes that the left is unwilling to defend the nation's own interests, always seeking further dialogue and seeking the approval of others, including those who are evil.

- The left believes that the right will act precipitously, ignoring solutions that may be more effective than force, and confirming the worst suspicions of other nations that we act selfishly.

What is a centrist perspective?

A centrist knows that both values are needed to achieve present and future well-being -- balancing force with persuasion. In today's world this is a seemingly impossible task, given the nature of potential weapons and how quickly events can move beyond our control.

But there is, I believe, one thing that is necessary for success: the person making the policy decisions must have a minimal comfort level with both worldviews. He or she must possess the wisdom to know when coercion is needed as well as when persuasion will yield acceptable or better results. A lack of confidence in either of these 'techniques' could be quite expensive for ourselves and the world as a whole -- for the present and future generations.

How do Bush and Kerry measure up?

Because of the events of the past few years, I suspect we're all much more acquainted with George Bush's leadership style than with John Kerry's. Given that virtually everyone agrees that the use of military force was a wise and appropriate response to the 9-11 attacks -- at least in Afghanistan -- and that George Bush was the person who initiated that response, maybe we're tempted to see him as capable of making the right call again.

Although I believe the president acted wisely in the overthrow of the Taliban, I have no confidence in his ability to know when to refrain from using the military if he sees a definite short term gain. Whether you want to believe Paul O'Neill or Wesley Clark's statements about what was being planned or when it was planned, one thing is for certain: Bush's first instinct was to use the military unilaterally in Iraq. It took the strong persuasion of Secretary Powell to convince him to even consult the world community. But by the time we went to the UN, the message was out: we'll topple Saddam alone or with others, but remove him we will.

Add to that the constant rhetoric of good versus evil-doers and it's quite obvious that George Bush sees the world through a single lense: the moral-system-of-the-right. He will use it whenever he can, because he sees any other option as a failure to take a strong stand against evil -- and that would be immorall. That's why he promotes the war on terrorism as the urgent mission of the United States. He's being quite sincere. But he cannot be trusted to skillfully use the weapons of negotiation and persuasion.

Perhaps this would not be such a big deal if we knew that his advisors were presenting him with a balanced approach. I think Colin Powell does present this balance, but others, including the vice-president and the pentagon's civilian leaders, do not.

Instead, the operative worldview is that of the right, specifically as expressed by those known as 'neo-cons'. Let me quote briefly from Fareed Zacharia's review of An End To Evil: How to Win the War on Terror by neo-cons David Frum and Richard Perle (emphasis added):

Frum and Perle criticize France (of course) as well as most of Europe, South Korea, China and Russia, and are predictably contemptuous of the United Nations. The world, they declare, is ''full of hypocrites and scofflaws.''...The authors advocate a muscular idealism that seeks to change the world, not accept it as is. But these sections also highlight why, with all its strengths, neoconservatism is ultimately not a serious guide to foreign policy.

Frum and Perle wish to revolutionize whole cultures, change regimes, deter potential threats, ''end evil'' itself. But they cannot abide the means to achieve it, which inevitably involves contact with other countries, negotiations, compromise, empathy. (This helps explain why there is not one foreign policy bureaucracy they speak kindly of.) To transform the world, you do actually need to engage in it. Many who think about American foreign policy share the goal of ''ending'' evil -- or at the very least diminishing its power and scope. They believe, however, that the most durable path to this goal lies in sustained measures, not one-shot deals, implemented not just by the United States but across the globe. And to take root, changes must be sensitive to the societies in which they are being imposed. Ending evil is a long, hard slog.

For neoconservatives such thinking amounts to appeasement...

The issues of American foreign policy today are often not simply of doing good but of doing it intelligently. Heroic talk is easy, but how do we promote democracy in Muslim countries without producing a reversal for women's rights (as is now happening in Iraq)? How do we push Saudi Arabia toward free elections without speeding it toward a radical Islamist regime? How do we get the South Koreans to support a tougher policy toward the North when they fear that such a policy would mean a North Korean collapse -- which they would have to spend decades absorbing? It is by intelligently balancing such interests that we will make lasting progress.

One can easily see the world-views in conflict and see that with the neo-cons holding sway, the foreign policy of the United States is in the hands of those who will take a hammer and pound on any problem that resembles a nail!

How about John Kerry? Given the fact of his service in Viet Nam, I think it's quite a stretch to turn him into the reverse image of George W. Bush. His entire record should certainly be scrtinized, including his service record, his statements as a war-protesting veteran and his service in the United States Senate.

As centrists, let's be sure that we're looking at the issues from a balanced perspective. That's our contribution to this discussion. That's how the nation will choose a leader who is both strong and wise!

Posted by Erasmus at February 17, 2004 08:24 AM