Centerfield

There's a lot of passion on the left about foriegn policy, but it's a reactive passion -- reacting to Bush's foreign policy and suggesting it is not only ineffective but disasterously counterproductive in the war on terror.

So the gap is absence of a positive vision -- saying "X" is the way to kick Al Qaida's butt, and criticizing the Republicans primarily for failure to do "X", instead of focusing so intently on the strategy they did choose.

We should recognize, however, that there's a political environment surrounding that failure to focus on a positive strategy -- the split between a segment of core Democrats who's anti-war passion trumps most everything else, and more moderate Democrats who might be queasy about the war but who see the issue more broadly.

It was hard for Kerry to focus on his own anti-terror strategy when so many of his supporters are keyed in on how wrong Bush is about the war.

That pretty much sums up my vote for Bush. However, I don't think his problem was not being clear about (1), but that he just doesn't believe that to be the case. I suppose his failure to clearly make that statement (though actually believing it) could be what lead me to that conclusion, though...

I ran into a real firestorm when i challenged the house liberals at work as to why they weren't trotting out the "corrosive effect" free speech rhetoric after that dutch filmaker got murdered. A lot more people seemed concerned with defending their turf than speaking out aboutan obvious principle.

The unwillingness of some or even many liberals to stick to obvious principles strikes me as a huge disconnect, and I find it very perplexing and disappointing. And before I get jumped on, I'm not suggesting it's necessarily endemic to the left, and that the right is somehow immune to to it.

I'm becoming more and more convinced as time goes by that many partisans on both sides stick with their team and want to win much moreso than they really think deeply about underlying principles. They mouth the principles in defense of their sides actions and views, but spend no time troubling over inconsistencies.

In today's circumstances, I think the democrats are DOA without stressing the primacy of opposition to islamic fundamentalism.

I've heard it stated repeatedly by democratic leaners that the GOP has the built-in hawk props, and that this means that the democrats can't win by outhawking the GOP.

My take is a little different. I say that under present circumstances, which, granted, may evolve, the Democrats CANNOT win without at least equi-hawking the GOP. In other words, opposition to islamic fundamentalist terror needs to become an issue that, at least in maninstream politics, is something that no one really disagrees about, not including methodology. they have to turn the battle of rhetoric into at least a draw, by agreeing strongly and obviously on the ends, and differing only incrementally on one or two points about methodology.

Liberals use to own the issue of democratizing and modernizing despotic regimes. I was a liberal then. Now they've abandoned this in favor of some sort of pacifistic academic internationalism that can be far too easily associated with reflexive anti-americanism. It's a losing hand here in America. Democrats need to drop it, and draw 2 from the deck, instead of insisting that 2 pair does too beat 3 of a kind.

Have you read some of the comments on Kevin Drum's post, though? Brrr.

It's a brilliant article. It is absolutely correct. There is no doubt that "liberals" are congenitally opposed to the idea of power. I have made comments in liberal blogs to the effect that US power has been important in keeping the peace in various areas. I got no real response because I think this is a concept that these people can't grasp because they are so caught up in the idea that power is evil and we have to develop a cooperative society. You can't even really have a dialogue with them on that because they think that anyone who supports force in any way (other than in response to a direct invasion of the United States)is a war monger. (Obviously, not all liberals think this way but it is a dominant mode of thought on the left.)

Having said that, I think Bush's foreign policy is fair game for criticism over the Iraq War and the way he has conducted the WOT. The problem is that, to a lot of liberals, the attacks are really just tactics; i.e., yes, we will criticize him for not doing enough to stop 9/11, but we really wouldn't have liked it if he had taken aggressive action against Osama bin Laden. There is a basic disconnect between the world view of American liberals and Europeans--who simply believe in peace at any price--and that of more traditionally-minded policy makers and voters in the US. To me, these people are simply sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the real world.

However, I think we need to be careful about going too far in the opposite direction too and making a fetish out of military power. The New Republic supported the war in Iraq which I thought was a mistake then and still do. Obviously, liberals are more comfortable criticizing Bush for being too hawkish and ignoring allies; it doesn't mean they are wrong however. I do not consider myself a liberal, but I do think that this Administration has turned military power into an end in itself. I know a lot of people think that the Islamist terrorist threat has created a new world and in many ways they are right. But I think it is a mistake to ignore people from the realist side of the spectrum that are concerned about overreaching. I don't think the new threat means that we simply ignore threats to civil liberties or that we become hysterical. IMO, Democrats have to find a way to develop their own vision of a muscular foreign policy that is at the same time, reasonable and flexible.

Kevin Drum quite successfully counters much of what Beinart has to say:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005251.php

In an nutshell, Islamofascism is bad. No doubt about it. But unless it poses an overwhelming security threat to the US..it's not bad enough for us to go around creating preemptive war. Compared to fascism and communism, Islamofascism isn't fundamentally expansionist.

To build on what Kevin is saying...it's not up to us to put democracy in places that neither want it or are asking for it. Democracy is hard work and it's messy. They've got to want it. A lot.

Is it arguable that liberals are too soft on Islamoterrorism? Sure. Just as it's arguable that conservatives are too iron fisted and unwilling to consider that it's not our freedom's they hate, but our policies.

In the end analysis the problem with coming up with an alternative to preemptive war originates with the problem that created preemptive war.

How do you fight a stateless, decentralized, idea. Where the enemy is Islamic but not all of Islam is the enemy. What do you do when the enemy refuses to stand up and let you kill him. You can call it a global war against terrorism but it really is a global guerrilla movement.

I know of only one instance in history where a guerrilla movement when successfully put down and that was in post WWII Germany, under very special circumstances. (every draft age male had server in the army an was just sick of war, the cities were all destroyed, the general population was traumatized and moral was nonexistent.) If you are going to win you have to have a winning strategy, and I cannot think of a historical example where anyone has successfully put down a guerrilla uprising. All you can do is leave. Unfortunately our oil consumption means we have to stay.

I think Beinart brings up some excellent points. I fall to the left-of-center with social issues (I thought the murder of the Dutch filmmaker was downright evil, myself, I am a staunch proponent of freedom of speech, press, etc.), but take on more of a hawkish stance when considering foriegn policy issues, so I must say I'm glad other Dems are thinking like this.
But if you look at most of the reaponses on Drum's site, you can see most hardline liberals don't buy it. I don't think a shift in the party towards this type of thinking is going to emerge anytime soon.
If you consider that many liberals view Joe Lieberman as a Bush bootlicker, it's not too hard to figure out that the left will never swing that way. Myself, I view Joe as an honest man, but with very little flair.

As far as the War on Terror, I think it's obvious that Bin Laden and his ilk want us out of the mideast to make their jobs of overthrowing secular regimes in the region a bit easier. It would be very annoying to me if every time I tried to destabilize a regime some asshole superpower came in and held things together.

I'm not saying we had much of a choice in most of our foriegn policy decisions. A crazy secular tyrant friendly to us bent on merely intra-national cronyism (we thought) was better than a bunch of crazed theocrats who despise us bent on inter-national cronyism. And our aid to Mabarak's Egypt doesn't help, nor does our support of Musharraf, or even our business with the Suadis. Propping up a Jewish state around Muslim holy sites probably gets no hoorahs from them either. And I imagine beating the hell out of their favorite Theocrat tyrants (Taliban) didn't sit too well.

But in the end, all this is just an excuse for Bin Laden to rally troops to his cause.

"... Compared to fascism and communism, Islamofascism isn't fundamentally expansionist."

Um, exactly what colour is the sun in Carla's world? Has she ever bothered to, you know, actually pay attention to the Islamists' professed goals? Public statements? Bueller? Anyone?

Being a 9/10 "let's go back to sleep and give them a few more cracks at us" Democrat is one thing, but this is a step beyond as denial of self-evident reality.

Whoa, there, Joe. I would love for you link to one statement where bin Laden or any other living islamicist (so Mohammed doesn't count) has professed an expansionist intent, other than to drive the Israelis into the sea. He's been pretty explicit in saying that all they want is for the west to stay out of the middle east so that he can overturn the corrupt regimes there, which he perceives us to be propping up. He's even said he'd continue selling us oil, since the muslims can't drink it (they only drink the blood of infidel babies). Sure, once he has finished there, he might be able in time to muster the forces to launch a reverse-crusade, but as it stands the only thing self-evident is that the islamicists simply don't have the manpower to launch anything close to an expansionist campaign. As garden-variety conservatives, there's is a defensive reaction, and 9/10, 9/12's gotten nothing to do with it. Boo!

Joe:

Have you ever bother to paid attention to their goals? Their goals are to get us out of the regions of the world they consider sacred. That's the color of the sun in the world of reality. Try it sometime.

They could care less about our freedoms. Osama wasn't in Tora Bora one day and just happened to trip over a copy of the Bill of Rights and said, "Wow..I really hate this. Lets kick their asses."

Okay, this bothers me. I've been reading this blog for a long time now, mostly as a lurker, and then this extremely reductionistic bit of rhetoric gets posted as something for consideration? This is a very insulting article that misrepresents the liberal and conservative positions on the War on Terror.

Liberals are concerned about domestic issues because they do not see how Islamic Extremism could possibly conquer our country. It is completely unfeasible and ridiculous to think that Middle-Easterners are going to invade us and force our women to wear burkas. Maybe that's why liberals are more concerned with things like our escalating debt and dwindling social programs.

This article is also insulting to conservatives as well, because it reduces them to a bunch of reactionaries. Most conservatives believe that Democracy, not the Military, will win the war on terror. The author has no faith in America, only in the "transformative capacity of U.S. military might."

I can't believe this was posted. It's so insulting to so many people on both sides of the aisle. You need to be more sensitive Todd and remember what this website is about.

A partial list of stated Al'Qaeda goals

1) Winning temporal power in Muslim countries (esp Saudi Arabia) by
making us look weak and al'Qaeda strong. Use said power to deny
the "crusaders" oil.

2) Use the same tide of perceived success to popularize ideas of
Muslim vs Western ideological warfare, fought on terroristic
terms.

3) Ousting "crusader" armies from the Middle East, and weakening them
globally.

4) Using terror attacks and other methods to get Western societies to
adopt sharia. (e.g., yes, bin Laden does have a goal of enforcing
burqa rules right here.).

Of course, no matter what bin Laden may have thought, enforced burqas aren't what we really have to worry about here. We DO have to worry about jobs (9/11 probably made the crash substantially longer and more severe, and will exact an ongoing tax in increased air travel costs), and reaction (noncitizens imprisoned indefinitely, warrants on the basis of people being friends of terror suspects, overreactions in airline security, etc.). The reaction in particular makes us less American in a way, and I'm sure terrorists are happy over it.

The idea that bin Laden and other foreign actors are primarily driven by hatred of what we do is inverse imperialism. It's a mirror image of saying that everybody loves the the US or wants to be American.

On the other hand, Joe, we should be honest about our own interior motives. Most Democratic opposition doesn't stem from inability for us to see threats. Remember which party lead and which one had to dragged in Kosovo. It's about opposition to Bush. If you oppose everything Bush says, opposing his security ideas and priorities is a logical extension.

rAs,

I'm just glad that I apparently "insulted" both liberals and conservatives, thereby reinforcing my centrist credentials. By the way, if this topic is out of bounds, what is this website about?

Todd,

It's about finding the truth, common ground, not splitting us into factions. When we reduce people to absurd characatures we also reduce the level of discourse. We must not forget that the whole point of political debate is to persuade the opposition, not throw out a bunch of "gotchas!" to make ourselves feel better about ourselves.

Do you honestly think insulting people is the way to achieving constructive debate? I prefer to reason with people, try to understand their actual position rather than tell them what my perception of their position is, and hope to stipulate some common ground.

In retrospect, I realize there are a lot of articles posted on this blog, not just yours, that I would definately consider "Out of Bounds." If I want inflammatory rhetoric, I'll go to Limbaug and Franken. I read this site because I believe in respectful debate, the Ideal Mean, and a United States. Misrepresenting each others opinions is contraindicated to that end.

If our purpose is to strengthen the center, then we have to be sensitive in what we say so that we don't scare half the Country away from the table.

I should also point out that I really enjoy your articles and this is the first one to ever "tweek" me. I never post until I have a criticism, so I wanted to make sure you understand this is the first time I can remember having a problem with the content of this blog. I greatly appreciate the work you do. : )

rAs,

I still don't understand how I insulted anyone. On the other hand, sometimes I have no idea why my wife is mad at me either. :)

Hmmm...I'm a liberal (okay..I know most of you didn't need that reinforced but it's fun to type it) and I didn't find the piece insulting at all. Maybe I'm just accustomed to reading stuff from people that seem to have little or no idea what many liberals truely believe.

I think rAs is put off by the generalizations of those who agree with Michael Moore and MoveOn as well as a general caricature of conservatives throughout the article, and I can see that. But, in my opinion Beinart was giving a quick overview of common thought within the Democratic party. Perhaps the issue is more complex, but I don't think that is overly insulting.
And I do believe his argument is the fact that Moore's films and MoveOn's activism (considered negative rhetoric by most people) do more to drive wedges in political discourse than help people to debate the issues.
I agree with rAs that the best way to find compromises for the common good only comes from empathy of opposing viewpoints, byut attempts to define a common viewpoint acceptable to a majrity in the party shouldn't be insulting.
Now there are points where he suggests just cutting the hard left out of the party and in that I disagree, but all in all I don't find the article too insulting to be presented as a centrist viewpoint. After all, isn't Beinart suggesting the Democratic Party should move closer to the center to improve their effectiveness in elections and government where foriegn policy is involved?
He states the party has established positive, well thought out stands on domestic issues, but is seen as ignoring what many in the country believe to be the greatest threat to America in today's world, terrorism.

Beinart's main thesis problem, IMO, is that he accuses liberals of not taking terrorism seriously. That thesis on it's face is ridiculous. Liberals in general were highly in favor of going into Afghanistan after 9/11. I know few liberals who don't support that effort.

From my POV, conservatives in general don't take terrorism seriously, especially in regard to supporting the War in Iraq. The details of why we went into Iraq can be hashed over ad nauseum and have been. But I have never been convinced that Iraq was anything more than a distraction from going after the real problems of terrorism...while Afghanistan is hardly a blip on the radar. To me, that's a serious problem that conservatives and Republicans have essentially ignored.

In terms of the overarching foreign policy ideology for Democrats, they've been in the center for years. Right now they're essentially "Republican-lite", offering not an opposition but a watered down version of the current offerings. This is completely inappropriate and antithetical to what an opposition is about.

As I've seen noted on another blog, the one person who really had a grasp about Iraq and wrote the most comprehensive and correct thesis about it in advance is Gary Hart....a liberal.

I read an excerpt from Hart's new book...not sure what I think of it yet. It seems he supports building up the National Guard while taking away some of the bulk of the DOD in an effort to build stronger states rights and allow local governments to take on more responsibilities.
What I did like was his emphasis on civic duty and the idea that citizens should take more of an active role within government and communitites.
His principles seem sound,as far as I've read, but I'd have to read more to form an educated opinion.

Er...I actually forgot to address carla's post, sorry, not meaning to spam the comments section.

There is a significant difference in the way Democrats and Republicans approach foriegn policy. While Neocons in the Bush Administration believe rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are the most significant threats to America, Democrats believe terrorist organizations and pockets of support within established and rogue nations prove to be the greatest threat.
The neos don't believe a terrorist organization can carry out massive operations without the support of a state, therefore they concentrate on rogue nations like Iraq believing that to be the major source of finances and logistics.
This kinda explains why after the Taliban fell Bush did not see Bin Laden as a big threat anymore, they figured if the state sponsoring him was eliminated he was no longer a global threat.
A Democratic point of view would have a more law enforcement oriented approach targeting groups and financial institutions backed by paramilitary operations when needed. Realizing that independent groups and individuals give these organizations their power.

Scott, I like the way you phrased that. It was objective and concise.

Scott:

Neither can I disagree completely with the way that you've distinguished the liberal/neocon views toward the war on terror, except to point out that if NoKo and Iran are the rogue-state focus for the neo-cons, then they're doing a typically (along with planning for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq) piss-poor job of it. I mean, we've got the Chinese, Japanese & SoKos handling the former problem for us, and the EU3, the latter, while we're bogged down in the garden of low-hanging fruit.

Alex-

Can't say I disagree, diplomacy and tact has not been the Administration's strong points. I saw a disurbing interview on MSNBC with former Sec. Eagleburner(sp?)and two analysts. When asked whether we would strike Iran within the next four years, they all said "definitely" even after they discussed the inability to hit even a fraction of nuclear facilities in the country and the terrible aftereffects of such strikes, but they all also agreed the strikes would be targeted at regime change. Hoping to spark an uprising within Iran; sound familiar? That's the type of strategy going on in the White House, according to these guys.

Maybe I'm mistaken about this...so if I am please feel free to do the obligatory corrections...

But wasn't Iran engaged in a pretty serious popular uprising against the Ayatollahs before we started the invasion of Iraq? It was my understanding that especially among younger Iranians, disenchantment with theocratic rule was running pretty high and there were efforts underway at a significant resistance.

After our debaucle in Iraq...shouldn't it be pretty obvious that bombing in an effort to prompt regime change creates a huge mess that we're not capable of cleaning up?

There is a serious resistance movement growing in Iran, both among youth factions and moderates. It's been getting more intense since the disenfranchsiement of the moderate legislature by extra-legal means a couple of years ago. The mullahs are constantly repressing local uprisings by force. The resistance and moderation movements are being frustrated by the mullah's continuing control of the military.

Some cogent points to note are that 2/3 of Iran's population wasn't even born yet at the time of the Iranian revolution and could care less about the glorious revolution, and that Iran is a somewhat techologically modern nation. This has been going on for several years. They have cable TV, they get the news, they have internet, and the mullahs don't control the technology. There is an active Iranian presence on the Internet and in the blogosphere that reports on current events in Iran. (Good luck, folks.)

More information on the subject from activists and resistance members can be found at Free Iran News. Overly optimistic, IMHO, but certainly not lacking in will and zeal.

I like the way Scott phrased that as well.
I'm sure what I'm about to write is the liberal viewpoint :). Or at least the utilitarian viewpoint. I think that because terrorism is essentially a rare event (okay, not in Iraq, but that's because it's merged with a guerilla war) it's very difficult to figure out appropriate responses to terrorism that achieve substantial benefits at acceptable costs. And when you add to that the political complexities of the Middle East, it becomes even more difficult to figure out a workable set of solutions.

Everyone wants to win the struggle against Al Qaeda. It's not as if people don't understand that they're a threat, although I do think there's a natural human tendency, neither liberal nor conservative, to want to move on at some point. Confronting terrorism on every front sounds great, and I can't imagine that anyone would disagree in principle, but the trick is figuring out what "confronting" and "front" means in practice.

Do we try for regime change? The problem -- and maybe this is the liberal view, but it's certainly my view -- is that targeting regimes doesn't work. We're clearly not successful at figuring out which regimes are the biggest threat. The Clinton administration clearly thought Iraq at least had weapons programs, and the Bush administration thought they had either current programs or weapons -- if we can't accurately assess who has weapons and to what degree, I don't see how we can really address threats using military force. Moreover, once we've sent in troops, it constrains our choices relative to other countries -- it's not as if there's just one clearly defined threat out there.

And I'm still not entirely persuaded that, 10 years from now, even if things go splendidly in Iraq, Iraq will be an ally of the U.S., and unlikely to develop weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not terribly democratic, less secular than it was during the 80s and 90s -- although I would expect it to be a regime with more popular support than during Hussein's reign. Sort of a more moderate, but less stable, version of Iran. I'm not persuaded that the interests of the Iraqis, as they would choose to define them, really are quite the same as our interests, or what we would envision for them in our ideal world.

Does it mean change in the Middle East? There appears to be little passion among Republicans or Democrats to continue discussing democratization in the Middle East, I assume because the short-term choices are so unappealing. In Saudi Arabia you have the ruling regime, which I would not exactly say was democratic, concerned about modernity or freedom, or committed to even a marginal version of gender equality. On the other hand, much of the opposition would be worse on those dimensions, plus has an explicitly anti-American platform. And the Saudi government knows that any substantial shift to democracy means they're out. I don't see how you discuss winning the struggle against terrorism without talking about the Saudis, but I don't know what a short-term solution would be, either. I think there are long term solutions, but the structure of the American political system *plus* the incentives of the leaders of the different Middle Eastern groups makes long-term planning very difficult.

How *do* you deal with Saudi Arabia? Or, for that matter, Pakistan? I would have loved to see Kerry talk more about that -- and I'm tired of hearing elected officials refer to "our friends" the Saudis, and I think the Pakistanis have certainly not confronted terrorism on every front -- but I can understand why the alternatives to the ruling regime seem unappealing. And why the ruling regimes in these countries have an incentive to act as little as possible.

Does it mean intelligence reform? Our elected officials are currently debating whether to put in place the 9/11 commission recommendations. Even there you see disagreement....and it's not liberals who are balking. For the record, I think more deliberation is good, and I'm not convinced the bill will really have the benefits we want....it's just an example, though, of how passion to address 9/11 doesn't lead to clear-cut policy choices, even for those who are clearly passionate about battling Al Qaeda.

Does every front mean port protection? Protecting the food supply? I'm not sure either liberals or conservatives are passionate about either of these issues.

What can we do about North Korea? Even among those who regard North Korea as a serious threat with respect to terrorism, has anyone -- liberal or conservative -- really come up with a workable solution to remove the incentive or the ability to build waepons, and then sell them?

I think that terrorism is going to happen. It happened before 9/11, and it has happened after 9/11, it's happening in Iraq, and it will happen elsewhre. And it isn't just Al Qaeda -- it's a method that various fringe groups use, some of whom are loosely connected to Al Qaeda, some not. We may never be able to entirely eradicate the use of terror (that was one of the wiser things I've ever heard Bush say, although of course there was an uproar afterwards). The goal in my view is to protect yourself as much as possible, to the point where the benefits still outweigh the costs. But trying to figure out how to do that isn't simple.

And then the question is: there are other things that have killed thousands of Americans and are preventable, probably more preventable than terrorism. I'm not convinced Al Qaeda is the biggest threat we face in terms of our collective safety, standard of living, etc. Part of what bothers me about the terrorism debate is that we don't treat terror like other policy issues. The reality is that we don't create regulations -- food regulations, airline regulations, pharamcy regulations -- that set up a world with as little risk as possible. We create policies that balance the costs of those policies with the benefits. And in my view, that's what we need to do with terrorism. My own view is that we need to do what we can until we think the benefits are less than the costs. Maybe that's the utilitarian/liberal viewpoint, and it probably isn't terribly passionate or electorally attractive.

Great points kate. In regards to Iran, I agree strikes probably would not have the desired effect of regime change. I think although Iranians are not happy with their current government and the power the mullahs weild they are still very nationalistic. Any strike against the country would bring Iranians to the defense of the realm, so to speak. So if strikes won't work what to do?
Possibly showing solidarity with the EU (if they can show solidarity themselves) would convince many in the Iranian government that possesion of nukes is not worth ostracization in the world. And then we can let the reform movement in Iran do its work peacefully.
of course, the perfect world scenario doesn't always pan out. After all, didn't the theocrats ban many reform candidates from running for office again? Maybe a temporary backlash the opposition can overcome, but I'm not sure. Tully seems to be more familiar with the reform movement in Iran.
I heard an Iranian on NPR who pointed out that many students involved in the revolution didn't expect the mullahs to seize power and many are in jail now for speaking out against them. Seems many Iranians support reform they just need to build a strong opposition.

A lot of the reaction depends on how you define the "liberal" reaction to terrorism. There were clearly many on the "left" that were not for military action in Afghanistan and believed, if anything, in bringing it to the UN and, essentially, turning it into a law enforcement function. A prime example is someone like Norman Mailer, who advocated this in The New York Review of Books.

The question is whether you consider someone like Mailer to be a liberal or a radical. Does he represent a significant core of liberal opinion. It really gets down, I think, into defining what is liberal opinion. Is it people like Mailer, Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Moore (to use the most prominent names) or is it people like Michael Walzer (who supported Afghanistan and wrote an article castigating leftists on their stance toward the 9/11 attack).

I spent much of the election period trying to persuade people that Michael Moore did not represent the Democratic Party.

But I do think there is a significant strand of liberal opinion (however you define it) that is opposed (1) to the idea of foreign policy as a means of advancing US interests as opposed to international goals and (2) to the idea that power and force can ever be legitimate. These are the people you are going to see on places like the Daily Kos and they get a lot of attention.

As I said before, IMO, there are lots of reasons to oppose Bush's foreign policy. That doesn't mean that you have to oppose the general idea of an internationalist policy based on the judicious use of power. To me, that might have been a better way for Beinart to go.

BTW, rAs, I am sure you mean well, but I take some offense at your and others attempts to define what is "appropriate" to post as a "centrist." To me, we deal with ideas, not a particular view of events.

I'm one of those liberals who believes a law enforcement style of going after terrorists (backed up with covert military action) is the more effective approach to fighting terrorism.

I did support going into Afghanistan...but based on the premise that we'd purge the Taliban (we haven't) and rebuild the country and it's infrastructure (not done outside of Kabul)and capture Bin Laden(not done either). I'm not so sure as I sit here that the UN wouldn't have been much more effective at dealing with Afghanistan than we have.

I read Kos and Atrios (and Washington Monthly and Josh Marshall) on a pretty regular basis. I haven't seen too much in the way of opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan. I think what you see is frustration that much of the premise for invading there has gone unfulfilled...and instead we've squandered ourselves in Iraq and created a second mess.

I think where Beinart fails most is accusing the Michael Moores and MoveOns of being against fighting terrorism. From what I've seen, nothing could be further from the truth. They believe (quite passionately, in fact) in fighting it differently.

So do I.

Carla,

I disagree with you about Moore. I believe he thinks terrorism is an issue that is largely made up. He is not "for" terrorism, of course, but he thinks it's not that big a deal. Norman Mailer wrote an article in which he compared the deaths from 9/11 to the number of deaths from auto accidents, suggesting that we are making too big a deal about the 9/11 deaths. I think that's how Moore feels as well. But I find it bizaare that someone cannot see the difference between dying getting murdered. I have seen nothing to suggest that Moore really feels that 9/11 was a major catastrophe except to the extent it implicates the rotteness of US policy. My suspicion is that he would have blamed Pearl Harbor on the stupid US policy of embargoing oil to the Japanese. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but neither he or Mailer are someone that I want to have my party associated with.

I understand your attitude (and probably Moore's) that terrorism has deeper roots and requires a more comprehensive solution than killing terrorists. But IMO you can't just ignore the immediate problem that there are nuts out there that like killing people. You have to remove them, just as you have to remove criminals from the streets before you can try to deal with crime on a more comprehensive basis.

I agree with MWS, Moore is quoted and on film saying, "Terrorism is not a threat..." pounding the podium as if to make the point more dramatically. Perhaps his comment was taken out of context, but I don't see how. I think he believes Bush is taking advantage of 9/11 to push a hardcore right agenda, which may be true, but that doesn't mean there is no threat. Of course the root causes may lie in madrasses or a myraid of social, political and economic problems and not always on a self-created battlefield, but to deny that a threat exists destroys one's credibility. And like MWS, I don't want someone who makes such blunders speaking on behalf of my party (he may not claim to be a Democratic spokesman, but he is seen as one anyway).

Personally, just based on the movie, I think Moore does see terrorism as a threat, but thinks that Al Qaeda is essentially a Saudi organization, and that the Bush administration(s) have done little to address that issue....presumably because in his view the Bushes are thisclose to the Saudis. And I think further that he believes that the Bush policies have made matters worse.

I personally think the situation is a lot more complicated than that -- the alternatives to the Saudi govt may be more democratic, but aren't particularly attractive either. And though I seriously disagree with the Bush policies -- well, more precisely, I'm skeptical about their ability to predict likely responses to their actions -- I do believe that George Bush believes his policies combat terrorism. Even the fact that Baker's firm is representing the Saudis in a suit some of the families has filed doesn't really bother me much -- it's a little distasteful, but it's a Texas firm that tends to represent oil interests, and I'm sure has a long history with the Saudis. And my problem with Moore is not so much his message, which I think is open for debate, as much as the fact that his movies can be pretty disjointed (particularly BFC), and he loooooves attention to the degree that it obscures anything he's trying to say. But I can certainly think of conservatives prominent in media that I find as annoying in somewhat similar ways.

I *do* wish more Americans were aware of the differences across Arab nations, and knew the actual nationalities of the hijackers. This is just my perspective, but hearing the occasional soldier say we invaded Iraq to pay someone back for 9/11 makes me wince a little. (I realize tat very few soldiers have been quoted as such -- it's just the sort of little thing that gets to me, on a personal level).

Re terrorism: When there are measures that are achieveable and would potentially help combat terrorism, I think very few people oppose them simply because they don't think terrorism is a threat. But figuring out what will work is, I think, really tough. Part of what I keep coming back to is that, while I think our intelligence could have been waaaaay better before 9/11 (actually, it probably could be waaaay better now), I'm not sure that 9/11 could necessarily have been prevented. Even if we could somehow, in a nation of this size, only allow legal immigrants in, some of those guys were in the country legally, right? And their profiles are probably not much different than a few thousand other people.

I actually think that we've done well disrupting the very top levels of Al Qaeda, and just the cockpit doors -- and the knowledge of the people -- make plowing a jet into a building difficult (even the 4th plane didn't make it to its destination that morning. And apparently there's been a handful of people who were, for whatever reason, just randomly disruptive on a flight and lived to regret it).

But if someone wants to blow themselves up on a bus, in Spain, in Baghdad, in Israel, or in the U.S., it's really hard to stop every single one of those people.

MWS:

We're going to have to agree to disagree about Moore. I think what you saw is likely lacking context. I believe Moore doesn't think terrorism is the greatest problem we face as Americans. And I agree with that sentiment.

Does that mean I don't take terrorism seriously?

Carla, no, but it means you take it less seriously than many others. You are implicitly acknowledging this, right? I think it's pointless to accuse others of "not taking terrorism seriously." But I do think it's very fair to compare one's own perception of how serious a concern it ishould be to how others feel about it.

And I think that this goes to a basic reason explaining the outcome of the 2004 election. Right or wrong, a majority of the people see terrorism as a greater threat than the democratic party seems to, simply by virtue of saying or transmitting, as you do, that we have bigger fish to fry. And I tend to agree with you that at the current time it does not present a very substantial immediate domestic threat. However, I also tend to think that there is a minimum level of seriousness with which we need to tackle terrorism, lest it become a more serious threat. And my sense is that the law enforcement view of the problem may not be adequate. I think this mostly because I feel that it enables covert support of terrorism (or benign neglect) by a variety of governments that aren't especially trustworthy and have mixed motives. It's a long list, including Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, just to name a few.

And I'm far from any sort of good idea about the details of dealing with it in the many different manifestations. But I think that going past loud saber rattling to multiple instances of saber using (Afghanistan and Iraq) was a necessary start. I wish that it wasn't, but my feeling is that the UN has always proven itself unable to act decisively, so we needed to show a willingness to act decisively and even unreasonably disporprotionately if necessary.

Carla,

If I ran into more liberals that publicaly supported the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan then I probably would have a much better opinion of the liberal movement in general.

Unfortunately the ones I personaly run into generaly had the same objections (and largely used the same rhetoric) about the U.S. involvment in Afghanistan as are currently in vogue about the war in Iraq. When the focus of reporting shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, their arguements shifted along with it.... often with the only distinction being the substitution of the word "Iraq" for the word "Afghanistan" in any given piece of rhetoric. I also encountered similar objections about Gulf War I, even to the limited goal of forcebly removing Iraqi troops from Kuwait and nothing more.

The stock arguements I've encountered from the Left regarding Afghanistan are some combination of the following:

1) There was no evidence linking Al Quaeda to the 9-11 attacks.

2) The real goal of the U.S. in Afghanistan was to secure natural resources (i.e. some sort of natural gas pipeline). Combating terrorism is a "manufactured" excuse.

3) The 9-11 attacks were mostly "Americas fault" due to oppressive foriegn policy decisions that impacted the "peace loving" people of the region.

4) The war on terror is spurred on by "overt racism".

5) The Bush Administration "manufactured" the war on terror for political expediency.... there was really no "grave threat" afterall.

6) The 9-11 attacks should be resolved entirely as a "law enforcement" issue.... if suspects exist in foreign countries we should rely soley on law enforcement assets and international diplomacy to "extradite" them. A millitary response is not warranted and use of millitary assets is counter-productive.

7) The Taliban, Bin Ladin and Al Quaeda were "created" by the U.S. in the first place.

8) By intervening millitarly in Afghanistan we will only be creating more terrosits then we can destroy.

9) Afghanistan is "unwinable". It will be Vietnam all over again. We'll get "bogged down" without making any progress. We'll suffer massive casualties. The indiginious population is "hostile" to us and will become more so over time. Our involvment will lasts years and ultimately we'll "loose"

10) The real way to handle Al-Quaeda would have been to send in a couple of "covert agents" to apprehend Bin Ladin. That would destroy the threat they pose.

11) The U.S. is NEVER justified in the use of millitary power. It is only the UN and the World Court that has any "legitimate authority" to use millitary force.

12) Intervention in Afghanistan is not justifiable because it goes against "world opinion".

It's eerie to me how closely these arguements seem to mirror the current arguements the Left makes about Iraq. Note, I am NOT trying to misrepresent the Left/Liberal position. The above arguements may well be out of tune with the mainstream Left/Liberal position.... however they are the ones that I, personaly, have encountered most frequently from Left/Liberal sources. It has therefore colored my perception that these ARE the typical positions of the Left/Liberal polity. I would LOVE to be disabused of that notion. Prehaps those making such arguements are just the most vociferous and therefore noticable elements of the Left/Liberal but aren't actualy representitive of it?

For the record, although I was/am a supporter of the current Administrations Iraq policy.... I can see a clear distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan. I can see the validity of a viewpoint that supported U.S. intervention in Afghanistan but opposed intervention in Iraq. I may not agree with thier conclusions (in fact I don't) but I do believe that there are honest, informed and logical arguements which can (and have) been put forward to support that viewpoint. Reasonable people can disagree about philosphies and the best course of action to pursue them. What I cannot see as reasonable/valid and some of the things that have incensed me most about the Left/Liberal polity recently ( and which have in fact, have spurred me emotionaly to adopt more extreme right position then I normaly would) are the viewpoints which I listed previously and which SEEM to me to eptimize the Left/Liberal position. Prehaps I am engaged in tilting at windmills more then I realize?

Also, Carla, I think one of our primary differences is that I DO see Islamofascism as fundamentally expansionist..... Possibly even more so then Facism or Communism. I just think we are reacting to it at an earlier stage and more comprehensively then we did with either of the
other two movements. (Note that although the U.S. DID intervene millitarly in the Russian Civil War of 1918-1920 our intervention was much more limited in scope and I would argue that was a comparitively later stage of the development of Communism). We also have capabilities to react that are, in proportion, far in excess of that which we had in either of the other 2 instances. Thus, IMO, it SEEMS like less of an expansionistic threat but idealogicaly I would argue it is every bit as much so.....and we are better of responding to it now before it is given a chance to expand it's capabilities.

Really when we talk about Islamofascism we are talking about two seperate (but I would argue interdependent) movements. Firstly there is Pan-Arabic ethnic nationalism as exemplified (but not limited to) by Saddam Hussein which I would argue is idealogicaly no different then the Pan-Germanic ethnic nationalism which was embraced by the Nazi's in the '30's.

Secondly we have fundementalist Islamic theocratic movement as exemplified by people like Bin Ladin. In my opinion, this later movement is idealogicaly identical to the great Arabic expansion of the 6th century. In fact, it OVERTLY appeals to the symbolism of that period in it's rhetoric (i.e. the STATED goal of the re-establishment of the Grand Caliphate in "all nations in which muslims live"). This is a religous evangelical movement which still FIRMLY embraces the credo of conversion by the sword. Essentialy it IS viewed by proponents as a core religious duty to exterminate the infidel (i.e. us) if they cannot be converted. The movement DOES see itself fundementaly and permanently in conflict with the West (even though the West may be ignorant of the fact). Just as was the historical case it does not see itself geograhicaly bounded by the straights of Gibraltar or the Bosporous. This is evident in the in the internal rhetoric of the movement itself... as opposed to the more toned down and limited goals the movement purports when it prepares material explicitly for our consumption.
The latter is simply a tactic to buy it enough breathing space to establish and consolidate enough power to pursue it's ultimate agenda.
Historicaly it's extents were imposed upon it by Poitiers and Constantinople (and later by Vienna) not by any self-imposed circumspection...and I firmly believe that it's present iteration can only be contained by similar methods.

Carla,

I agree with you that terrorism is not the MAIN problem facing the United States. But I am disturbed by what I sense was and is a lack of emotional response on the part of people like Moore to what was essentially the mass murder of 3000 people. I have yet to hear any legitimate grievance that would justify such an act. Yet, there was a clear implication on the part of people like Moore that, while he wasn't exactly advocating terrorism, he might have thought we had it coming to us. Several on the left have made comments to the effect that, why are we so upset about 9/11 when far more people die in traffic accidents. The moral obtuseness of this view is just mind-boggling and I think you are simply ignoring reality to deny that such sentiments exist. It was these sentiments that, moved Michael Walzer, hardly a conservative, to write an article questioning the possibility of a decent left.

Cengel is absolutely dead on in his analysis of what many liberal/left were saying about Afghanistan. There were numerous protests on campuses to the effect that we were going to destroy Afghanistan for no reason. Contrary to your argument that most liberals favored Afghanistan, my impression at the time was that, outside places like TNR, it was very rare for liberals to come out in favor of any military action.

I'd like to see the nationality breakdown of Guantanamo prisoners. Unfortunately, you can't get those figures -- but I'd bet that, aside from individuals from Afghanistan and Pakistan, they're primarily individuals from places such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen. I don't think it was a coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, or that Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. Certainly Al Qaeda has been traditionally funded by Saudis. And isn't even Zarqawi a Wahhabi (I'm not sure if that's the right way to phrase it), albeit from Jordan?

Was the part of the 9/11 report, the 28 pages that supposedly focused on the connection between the Saudis and terrorism, ever released?

If we're really going to do something about terrorism, or at least Al Qaedaesque terrorism, I think "our friends" the Saudis are a good place to start, though I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure what the solution is. But it would be nice if the Saudis had been more interested in a solution when all this started, in the early to mid 90s. Their interest seems to have increased as terrorism has repeatedly struck in their own nation, but for many years, they seemed to turn a blind eye to what they're producing.

North Korea and Iran are problems, I agree. But there weren't any North Koreans on those planes. There weren't any Iranians, I don't think. There certainly weren't any Iraqis.

I feel passionately about battling terrorism, though I agree with Carla that it's not the nation's biggest threat. But I just don't see a whole lot of people, liberal or conservative, talking about it in terms of Wahhabi Islam. It's as if all Arabs get lumped together, with no recognition that the region itself has religious and ethnic tensions.

kate,

That's a good point. Much of the Islamic terrorism involves intra-Muslim politics, with different groups trying to get the upper hand. There are great differences between the groups, the Sunnis and Shiites being the most obvious.

Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have used Muslim divisions to maintain power. If not encouraging, they certainly don't mind terrorism that is directed outward, ie, against anyone but themselves. The fact is, it's not clear how much of an interest these Arab autocrats have in stopping terrorism because it creates a release valve for pressure against them. In the same way, these states have been happy to see conflict between Israel and teh Palestineans; it allows them to use the struggle as a unifying mechanism intead of having the populations' discontent aimed at the rulers. So, I don't think they have ever been all that interested in stopping terrorism directed toward others. Of course, now that it seems to be turning inward, they might be more interested. The US has contributed to this problem by appearing to prop up these corrupt regimes. The problem now is that the alternatives are none to appealing.

Kate,

The region certainly has religious and ethnic tensions but I don't think the the "lumping together" effect is entirely a product of Western ignorance. Various factions may absolutely loathe each other but the bottom line is they often feel a greater degree of commonality with each other then when dealing with what they percieve as external entities like the West. In fact, I would hazzard that certain power structures often play upon this percieved "common front" toward "outsiders" in order to obscure internal differences and the difficulties which arise from them.

I don't think it's all that dissimilar from Europe in the middle ages..... which was certainly as contentious a bunch of feuding states as anyone could hope to find. Yet when dealing with Saracens or Mongols or other "heathens" attitudes were amazingly uniform. In fact, if memory serves, the Crusades pretty much origonated as an effort by the Church to distract from internal tensions in Europe (and at the same time enhance the Churchs power in relation to the nobility).

Cengel,

I do believe that Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis will band together against Americans -- at least anti-American Shiites and Sunnis will do so (but even there, some of these latest attacks have been against Shiite mosques). I'm not at all convinced that Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia will ever get along that well with Iraqi and Iranian Shiites.

Every piece of evidence I've ever seen suggests that Al Qaeda itself is primarily a Saudi-run, Saudi-financed organization with disproportionately Saudi participants. And the other people involved tend to be from places such as Jordan, Kuwait, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I do think that there's a lot of evidence that Al Qaeda does not draw its strength randomly across the Arab world, even among people who intensely dislike the U.S.

I can't think of an example of an Iraqi Shiite with involvement in Al Qaeda. Can anyone here?
I don't think, for instance, that Iraq (either in the Shiite or Sunni areas) had the same sorts of Islamic schools that Saudi Arabia does. That's a pretty fundamental difference right there.

What should be interesting as time goes on is to figure out whether Al Qaedaesque organizations has been able to make inroads among Iraqi Sunnis. Zarquawi (I'm sure I've mispelled that) is Jordanian, but clearly he is in Iraq, and has a following in Iraq -- I'm curious to what degree Iraqi Sunnis, who have always been relatively secular, are becoming involved. I'm not at all surprised that Iraqis would engage in insurgent warfare. I am a little surprised that they would engage in suicide bombing, since that's usually not the approach of relatively secular insurgents. So I wonder how much of that is Iraqi, and how much is foreign. But I think not even our best intelligence is good enough yet to get a handle on that.

But my overall point is this: I think if one is really "passionate" about battling terrorism, one *has* to talk about Saudi Arabia, the Islamic schools there, the virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli preaching. And I don't hear that discussion happening to great degree among either liberals or conservatives. I've really been struck by how few people, even among elected officials, really talk much about Saudi Arabia. There's a handful of people on both side of the aisle, and the media are actually getting better about talking about it, but those are relatively recent developments.

I've been doing some searching, but haven't been able to find anything -- does anyone know if those 28 pages out of the 9/11 Commission Report that (supposedly) addressed the Saudis ever get released? If we really want to deal with terrorism, perhaps releasing the full report would be a good step.

As MWS notes, now that the terrorism has turned inward, there's more interest in Saudi Arabia in cracking down, but that's recent. It wasn't until the summer of 2004 that Prince Bandar felt the need to publish an editorial about how the Saudis needed to stop blaming others for their problems, and address terrorism -- almost a full 5 years after 15 Saudis got on those planes and killed thousands of people, not to even mention the smaller-scale attacks within Saudi Arabia itself. For a long time, doubtless out of an interest in survival, I think the Saudi govt buried its collective head in the sand. And I find it depressing that the short-term solution is the inherently undemocratic one.

It's my understanding that Wahhibism is present in most Muslim nations and although it originates from Saudi Arabia no mideast nation is immune. Of course, Saudi Arabia is a bastion for financing terrorist organizations, many of whom advocate the disposal of the Saudi Royal family and probably for very unislamic purposes. The anti-American preaching is almost impossible to control from our vantage point, that is something Muslims must do for themselves. But, of course, in nations where speaking one's mind may get you a ticket to "chop-chop square" that's alot to ask.

I do agree that it will be extremely difficult to change the hearts and minds of people who have been taught all their lives that America is equal to Satan. To me, it would be like convincing all of America that the Nazis were simply misunderstood. (Not comparing America to Nazis, just an example of the extreme views I believe are involved).

To me, though, it all boils to the financing. Cut that off and you destroy the global terrorism threat for the short term. Then, for long term fixes, you allow moderates to do their thing by pressuring the regimes we support to encourage a dialogue and a reshaping of Islamic education.

Scott,

You raise a lot of good points. Wahhabism -- or at least similar versions of Islam -- is definitely on the move, so to speak. I could be wrong about this, but my impression was the Wahhabism was the official version of Islam in Saudi Arabia, and that Saudi Arabia was the primary source of this particular school (I'm not sure if that's the right word) of Islamic law. I gather, for instance, that the Taliban actually started as something else, and then essentially evolved into Wahhabism in large part because of Saudi influence...and contacts between Saudis and Moslems in the former Soviet republics have of course influenced how Islam is practiced in those places...and then of course, there's Bosnia (and now an interest in Iraq?). This does suggest what others have noted -- an interest in expansion. And, as you note, the financing from Saudi Arabia -- from ostensible charities -- is a real problem in this expansion.

I'd be curious about Falluja -- I've always heard that Fallujua, even before the war, was sort of a Iraqi center for Islamic extremists, which would explain why Hussein left Falluja alone and vice versa. So I'm wondering to what degree (and when) Wahhabism had taken root there. And I'd guess that reports that the Saudis are currently trying to influence Iraqi politics (along with the Iranians and the Syrians -- although it seems to be the Iranians who get the most attention) are at least partly true, which would suggest a potential growth in this sort of thing in Iraq.

To be fair to Wahhabism (gosh, it feels weird to type *that* phrase), although lots of people such as myself tend to classify Al Qaeda as Wahhabi in nature, even that's oversimplifying a complex situation. I gather that since Wahhabi is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, bin laden & company are actually seen by many as practicing Qutbism. (I confess that at that point I get a little confused.) And I gather Wahhabism itself does not encourage or condone violence, even if in practice much of Al Qaeda has Saudi roots. Almost by definition, bin laden *couldn't* be Wahhabi, from that perspective, because the Saudis have disowned him. On the other hand, in terms of substance, it's still not a coincidence that so many in Al Qaeda are Saudi.

For what it's worth -- and I haven't found other comparable figures, so I hesitate to conclude anything from one citation -- Dore GOld's _Hatred's Kingdom_ cites a 2001 Jane's International Security article which gives the following breakdown for Al Qaeda, at least post-Soviet defeat in Afghanistan:

5,000 Saudis
3,000 Yemenis
2,800 Algerians
2,000 Egyptians
400 Tunisians
350 Iraqis
200 Libyans
dozens of Jordanians

It will be interesting to see how things change. My sense is that the Saudis and Jordanians are really worried about the possibility of another Shiite Republic, and of course the Iranians are downright enthusiastic about the potential for influence....and all that totals up to a lot of people (and money) trying to cross borders and influence Iraq.