For several weeks I've been writing to write a post taking a critical view of the approach to the foreign policy of the Democrats and Republicans, particularly on security matters. Today's anniversary, as well as this column by Norman Podhoretz, provide the necessary springboard for that post.
Criticizing the Democrats is easy: for them it's always Vietnam. The Persian Gulf War was going to be Vietnam. Afghanistan was going to be Vietnam. And as the bumper sticker says, Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam. It's Vietnam 24-7. For many on the left Vietnam was a victory, not a defeat. It was a victory over the military-industrial complex. It was a victory against neo-imperialism and other leftist bogeymen. It was a time when people took to the streets and a president resigned in ignominy. Many people are invested in a U.S. defeat, for if the U.S. prevails then, well, maybe war is the answer -- an unacceptable notion.
Many, it must be acknowledged, also agree with the leftist position because they are genuinely anguished over the U.S. participating in a war that they see as misguided and futile.
For many others, the hardcore left, the military is an odious institution that represents everything wrong with this country. The Bush Administration is an illegitimate regime that is in the clutches of the oil industry. And the United States of America is a rogue nation whose power and pro-capitalist ideology must be restrained at all costs. Whenever the U.S. wields its might they rise in reflexive opposition.
Turning attention to the Republicans, they have their own set of issues that have hindered the war on terror. For them it's always a world war, or some similar kind of grand conflagration. The title of Podhoretz's book says it all "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofacism."
I get the feeling that a lot of right-wingers felt lost in the collapse of the Cold War and use the world war template to help them make sense of the current conflict. Just as U.S. defeat in Vietnam was a triumph for many on the left, I suspect that many of the right view the 1980s as their heyday when the U.S. marshaled its resources to confront the Evil Empire. The U.S. was back to kicking butt and erasing the Vietnam legacy, every boy wanted to follow Tom Cruise's footsteps and become a naval aviator and people were proud to be American.
So too many on the right see this fight against terrorists as this epic struggle of our time and appear to have lost all perspective. As a result we have established a ludicrously-named Department of Homeland Security that has tried to outdo its rivals at the Pentagon for finding new ways to waste money, force airline passengers to wait in long security lines of dubious value and keep a running color coded terror threat level posted that absolutely no one pays any attention to.
Yes, terrorism is something that warrants considerable concern and is a real threat. This is not some imaginary menace cooked up by neocons and oilmen in the hopes of furthering some nefarious agenda. But just because the threat is real does not mean that all else should be subservient to eliminating it. How many Americans have died at the hands of terrorists in the last 30 years? I would have a hard time believing it is much more than 10,000. To put that number in perspective consider the following:
And yes, I realize that the relatively low levels of terrorism death are at least partly attributable to the efforts against terrorists -- as it should be. The CIA, FBI and U.S. military should be constantly vigilant against this threat and seeking to eliminate them when they are found. But how many incidents have been prevented because of our absurd airline security procedures? How many have been averted because of anti-terror funding in Nowhereville, North Dakota? I suppose that it can be argued by some that if even 100 lives are saved per year due to the increased measures against terrorism that it's worth it, but I don't think anyone really believes this. Contrary to what you were raised to believe, you can place a value on life. After all, if we really wanted to save lives we would set a speed limit of 5 mph, but the costs would be prohibitive.
Where is the cost-benefit analysis of the struggle against Islamic radicals?
Incidentally one thing I do find admirable about Podhoretz's book is his avoidance of of the term the "war on terror," substituting "Islamofascism" instead. Why President Bush decided to use this silly term is beyond me. Terror is a feeling. Terrorism is a method. Neither can be eradicated, implying an endless war. While some on the left see this as intentional so that Bush can pursue a war in perpetuity, I think it is likely more attributable to political correctness and an unwillingness to openly identify the Islamic nature of our enemies.
Criticizing the Democrats is easy: for them it's always Vietnam. The Persian Gulf War was going to be Vietnam. Afghanistan was going to be Vietnam. And as the bumper sticker says, Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam. It's Vietnam 24-7. For many on the left Vietnam was a victory, not a defeat. It was a victory over the military-industrial complex. It was a victory against neo-imperialism and other leftist bogeymen. It was a time when people took to the streets and a president resigned in ignominy. Many people are invested in a U.S. defeat, for if the U.S. prevails then, well, maybe war is the answer -- an unacceptable notion.
Many, it must be acknowledged, also agree with the leftist position because they are genuinely anguished over the U.S. participating in a war that they see as misguided and futile.
For many others, the hardcore left, the military is an odious institution that represents everything wrong with this country. The Bush Administration is an illegitimate regime that is in the clutches of the oil industry. And the United States of America is a rogue nation whose power and pro-capitalist ideology must be restrained at all costs. Whenever the U.S. wields its might they rise in reflexive opposition.
Turning attention to the Republicans, they have their own set of issues that have hindered the war on terror. For them it's always a world war, or some similar kind of grand conflagration. The title of Podhoretz's book says it all "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofacism."
I get the feeling that a lot of right-wingers felt lost in the collapse of the Cold War and use the world war template to help them make sense of the current conflict. Just as U.S. defeat in Vietnam was a triumph for many on the left, I suspect that many of the right view the 1980s as their heyday when the U.S. marshaled its resources to confront the Evil Empire. The U.S. was back to kicking butt and erasing the Vietnam legacy, every boy wanted to follow Tom Cruise's footsteps and become a naval aviator and people were proud to be American.
So too many on the right see this fight against terrorists as this epic struggle of our time and appear to have lost all perspective. As a result we have established a ludicrously-named Department of Homeland Security that has tried to outdo its rivals at the Pentagon for finding new ways to waste money, force airline passengers to wait in long security lines of dubious value and keep a running color coded terror threat level posted that absolutely no one pays any attention to.
Yes, terrorism is something that warrants considerable concern and is a real threat. This is not some imaginary menace cooked up by neocons and oilmen in the hopes of furthering some nefarious agenda. But just because the threat is real does not mean that all else should be subservient to eliminating it. How many Americans have died at the hands of terrorists in the last 30 years? I would have a hard time believing it is much more than 10,000. To put that number in perspective consider the following:
Killed in car accidents 42,116*So yes, terrorism -- particularly if you live in a major metropolitan area -- is a concern. But you are far more likely to be killed in a driving accident or in a random street crime that by an Islamic militant. And yet we have this overriding fascination with Islamic terrorists that is completely out of proportion to the threat they pose.
Killed by the common flu 20,000*
Killed by murders 15,517*
Killed in airline crashes
(of 477m passenger trips) 120 (1)
Killed by lightning strikes 90*
And yes, I realize that the relatively low levels of terrorism death are at least partly attributable to the efforts against terrorists -- as it should be. The CIA, FBI and U.S. military should be constantly vigilant against this threat and seeking to eliminate them when they are found. But how many incidents have been prevented because of our absurd airline security procedures? How many have been averted because of anti-terror funding in Nowhereville, North Dakota? I suppose that it can be argued by some that if even 100 lives are saved per year due to the increased measures against terrorism that it's worth it, but I don't think anyone really believes this. Contrary to what you were raised to believe, you can place a value on life. After all, if we really wanted to save lives we would set a speed limit of 5 mph, but the costs would be prohibitive.
Where is the cost-benefit analysis of the struggle against Islamic radicals?
Incidentally one thing I do find admirable about Podhoretz's book is his avoidance of of the term the "war on terror," substituting "Islamofascism" instead. Why President Bush decided to use this silly term is beyond me. Terror is a feeling. Terrorism is a method. Neither can be eradicated, implying an endless war. While some on the left see this as intentional so that Bush can pursue a war in perpetuity, I think it is likely more attributable to political correctness and an unwillingness to openly identify the Islamic nature of our enemies.
No comments:
Post a Comment