Home by Christmas Wednesday, June 30, 2004

More responses. My correspondent from yesterday clarifies that he was talking about the War on Terror being the endless one, and that it's bizarre to wage war on a concept. I'd be perfectly happy to call it a war on radical Islam, or Islamofascism, or whatever; for political purposes that's not going to happen, so a War on Terror it is.

As for the endless bit: What, then, do you want? Ignoring for the moment "root-cause" arguments and speculation that Jeb Bush or the Mossad flew the planes into the World Trade Center, we have been attacked; we have been threatened repeatedly with more attacks and have foiled at least several that have been made public; ditto for allied nations.

You can hate GWB nine ways from Sunday, and those facts aren't going to go away. Nor is the fact that the enemy, while sponsored and sheltered by any number of states, not a conventional battlefield opponent that you can beat at a Stalingrad or Waterloo. We've already seen GWB get into hot water for even hinting prematurely (although emphatically not stating) that the tough part in Iraq was over; what, then, should he say about the fight we now face? "Few years, no sweat"? Should I write the Times headline now? Same for terror alerts, which my correspondent also mentioned: If we got no warnings, ever, and another attack came--what then? How many more "Jersey Girls" would be lining up to hoot and bitch in a Senate gallery?

Moreover, we have good reason to think the fighting won't be endless. Look at what we've accomplished so far: the Taliban deposed, and a friendly government installed in its former base of operations. Saddam Hussein in the hands of Iraqis, and his mishegais done with. Libya neutered as a terror threat. The Saudis afraid of their own people. The eyes of the world on Iran's mullahs and their nuclear program. Pakistan's nuclear salesman exposed and his clients on the run.

And, most dramatic of all, a Republican president has publicly repudiated the policy of cozying up to strongmen who give us a strategic advantage, and committed the U.S. to spreading representative democracy around the world. If you want to believe it's all about oil, or about Halliburton selling more toilets, fine; but even if it's just talk, which I do not cede, goddamn if it isn't the best talk you could imagine--and backed up by practical action besides.

It's fine to kvetch about how things are being run, but I think it's completely backward to say we're in a phony fight or the threat is being exaggerated for crass political purposes. Terrorists are not the USSR; they're not going to be held in check by proxy wars and Kissinger--or, for that matter, international committees and protest concerts on the Vineyard. They've said they want us gone, or they want us to follow their diktats. Both are unacceptable.

I don't want my son to die in the sand, and it galls me that other people's kids, who are braver than I'll ever be, have to give up their lives. But I would hope critics of the war could spare at least some blame for the people shooting at them, cutting off their heads and mutilating their bodies--not the strategists in Washington.

@ 8:19:00 AM,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home