It is clear that Rove's plan for the Republican campaigns depends on the majority of citizens and voters believing that there is a "clear and present" danger to the United States against which only the Republicans are likely to be successful. Boiled down to its core, that's what the election of 2006 is all about ... or at least that's what's going to dominate the news and the punditry for the next four months. We think it's time be done with Rove, once and for all! The best way to do that before 2008 is to humiliate him at the polls.
One of the Rove strategies is to cry "wolf" at any pretext. The assault on the New York Times, (which we explained a few days ago is a deliberate and transparent set-up inadvertently revealed by the Wall Street Journal in their own editorial!), is but a tactic in this over-all strategy. It is always good to impugn the word of an adversary, even one which has carried your lunch for a while, for in the case of the NYT, it remains "the newspaper of record" and "the news the right loves to hate." Well, is there really a clear and present danger? Is the enemy armed and at the door? The quick answer is that nothing is ever completely "clear." North Korea is a danger to South Korea and to Japan and, presumably, represents a large annoyance to China and to Russia and to the United States, but in fact North Korea's abilities to be naughty are hazy and not really "present." Perhaps they will become more "clear and present" in a few years, but it is just as likely that the regime will begin to collapse from within as it attempts to interface with the real world.
Iran is a nuisance, of course, and its role in the middle east cannot be denied. Iranian provocateurs fan the embers of hatred and nascent nationalism among the Palestinians and the Shiia of Iraq. If Iran were to become a member of the nuclear weapons club, then surely the stability of the middle east would be upset. But, seriously, Pakistan v. India represents a far more advanced level of hostility than does Iran v. Israel or Iran v. any other state. No, Iran is not a "clear and present" danger ... but to be sure it bears constant scrutiny and multi-lateral, collective-security approaches by all the interested powers.
Iraq and Afghanistan are now holding actions and occupations. Yes, both are hazardous to our soldiers and even more so to their own citizens. Neither has ever been a "clear and present" danger to the U.S. at any time. An Iraq in the future becoming a hostile state ... even more hostile that when Saddam Hussein was in charge ... bodes poorly for our petroleum import interests and associated companies, of course, but no, neither Iraq nor Iran poses a "clear and present" danger to the United States.
Strangely, Russia remains a "clear and present" danger, but one which should be tractible with a decision to "bring them along," rather than Bush-whacking them and destabilizing them. The Bush/Neocon view of Russia is that Americans are used to being against them, so why not be against them some more?! Horsefeathers! Russia wants to survive and become a country among the nations of the world that have achieved modernization. I can guarantee you they do not want empire; they have more land than they can handle now ... and not enough people. And, they have their own petroleum, so why should we worry about them as potential enemies? Only because they are armed to the teeth and not very stabile, that's the reason.
Terrorism, generally, does pose a serious threat to all the advanced and developed countries of the world. Terrorism is the military response of subjugated people to those who present the largest and most available target, the end in mind being a painful embarrassment of that target and its society and culture. The 9/11 attack was just exactly that, a painful embarrassment. Terrorism, in the world of the twenty-first century is a "clear and present" danger, there's no doubt about that. What there is doubt about is what to do about it. This is where we get back into politics.
Rove and Bush & Co., Inc. believe that "keeping the battle over there" is the best way to satisfy the righteous alarm of the American people. The unfortunate side-effect of such a policy is to continue and, in fact, expand the breeding ground for terrorism. This happens as a result of direct economic deprivations experienced in the battleground countries, and indirectly among the immigrants from the battleground countries to the large western cities where they languish in continued poverty amid the wealth all around them. Some among them develop huge chips on their shoulders and fall under the sway of terrorist recruiters and leaders. And, as we have said many times, keeping the battle over there is expensive and automatically short-changes the liberal social programs installed over the past half-century.
Liberals believe that waging a war on terrorism in foreign countries is a contradiction in terms. It amounts in actual fact to nurturing terrorism and is by definition self-defeating. Yes, we invaded Iraq and, yes, we owe them some safety while they are getting their house in order. The present American occupation should transform itself into a self-extinguishing policing action, to be taken over by the Iraqis as soon as humanly possible. This means that Halliburton will lose its contracts for building permanent bases in Iraq.
The idea that Republicans would be more successful in combatting terrorism depends on a suspension of disbelief contradicted by the continuation of the insurgency in Iraq, the failure to take action after Katrina, the failure to prevent the WTC attack, the continuing follies of DHS and FEMA, the failure to find Bin Laden, and scores of other events more or less reliably reported. The only thing Republicans and Neocons bring to the table is surly bellicosity. Americans grow up seeing this sort of thing in school playgrounds, so they should not be impressed.
Liberals are not soft on national defense. Liberals see past the immediate provocation into the root causes of things and design their responses to effect useful change at the level of causes. Conservatives, full of bellicosity and fear, instead charge in with the unspoken aim of killing as many people as they can to "teach those rag heads/gooks/muthers a lesson."
The American people are not stupid. If the Democrats simply state their policy as one aimed at causes not at vainglorious fear-mongering, then Americans will understand the nuances and detail. Americans are not simple-minded sound-byte consumers; they are generally pretty smart and recognize a losing fight when they see one, and likewise recognize a smart plan when it is presented to them.
Rove will charge that Democrats are cowardly wimps. The records shows that Democrats are seasoned veterans, unafraid to answer the call when it legitimately comes. It is the Republican leadership that are the cowards, too busy to have served or too high on cocaine and booze to remember to show up.
Brettnet The American Liberalism Project