|
Matthew Yglesias points out that, contrary to Republican claims, there is little difference between left and right on the definition of the "the war against terrorism":
|
"I'm not seeing a vast substantive difference here. Surely the Bush administration also thinks that counterterrorism involves mere law enforcement on most days with only the occassional hot war (we've only fought two wars, after all, and Kerry only disagreed with Bush on half of one of them). I feel like I've heard that from the president's own mouth -- this is "a new kind of war," that kind of thing. I wouldn't want to say that there are no differences between the foreign policy views of Bush and his opponents, but at this point, they really aren't very big.
|
Big Media Matt hit the nail on the head by knocking down this right-wing straw man. Democrats have clearly embraced the pragmatic post-September 11th reality: the United States must be willing wage war against countries that threaten America by harbouring terrorists. No argument there.
Oh, and he was doing so well. But in that last sentence Yglesias veers off into no man's land. Excuse me, but the foreign policy differences between Bush and his opponents "really aren't very big"!? In what box, under what bridge has Matthew been living?
In case anyone's missed it, here's the difference: Democrats support attacking any country that threatens the United States, if it will help them win the war against terrorism -- the Bush Administration doesn't care whether, or not, such a country poses a threat to the United States in the first place.
The Bush Administration was clearly intent on war either way. Paul O'Neill has told us as much. Paul Wolfowitz said that weapons of mass destruction were simply the justification officials "settled on". Even when UN inspectors were readmitted to Iraq, the Administration reacted by reiterating its goal of "regime change". WMD, and by extension the "threat", were a minor issue, at best.
I'm not claiming this is imperialism. As Joe Biden recently said, the neocons are patriotic Americans who really believe this malarkey. They truly believe that -- even though Iraq posed no threat to the United States -- attacking Iraq made Americans safer.
For all their contempt of containment, deterrence and detente, the neocons are practicing their own version of it. A scary, warped version, but a version none the less.
They have written, in black and white, that the United States must create a world order characterized by American military dominance in every region of the world. The neocons aren't ready to stop supporting friendly dictators -- and they know they can't kill every terrorist. But they believe that by exercising absolute military power in the Middle East they can contain and deter terrorists.
I am a great supporter of containment and deterrence. They are, however, concepts steeped in rationality and logic. Sadly, those are two qualities I've found to be lacking amongst contemporary terrorists. And for that matter, amongst neocons.
|