Has Bush Made the Nation More Vulnerable?
By J Norman MarshMr. Obama was exactly right when he said Americans do not have to choose between security and their democratic values. By denying those values, the Bush team fed the furies of anti-Americanism, strengthened our enemies and made the nation more vulnerable.
Obama sought the high ground yesterday, arguing about laws, values and morals. Again, Cheney had a powerful answer: No moral code requires Americans to commit suicide to spare terrorists unpleasantries.
It’s true that Americans do not have to choose between security and democratic values. However, to deprive a select few - non-US citizens found collaborating with the enemy in order to do grave harm to the United States - of their individual liberties (one could argue during a time of war) hardly undermines our democratic values. As stated by others, the Constitution is not a suicide pact where national security must, at all times, bow to individual liberty in the absolute. American history is rife with examples of Presidents from both sides of the aisle who violated the individual liberties of the few in the name of national security. (Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus, FDR’s internment of the Japanese and Truman’s “loyalty hearings” are some examples.) You cannot have democratic values without a substantial degree of national security. Many Presidents have believed, as I do, that the current viewpoint among some Liberals that 9/11s are simply the cost of living in a country as open and free as the United States, is grossly irresponsible, an affront to reason, morality and common decency.
Now, let’s deal with the other primary claims of the NY Times Editorial board:
- The Bush administration fed the furies of anti-Americanism by not adhering to democratic values.
Surely, some of the symbols of Bush’s War on Terror (Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay in particular) were used as propaganda in the Muslim world and further flamed the fire against the US; however, this had nothing to do with the US not holding to its democratic values. Those who hate us hate us because of our democratic values (as stated by Cheney). In all likelihood, they hate Liberals - generally more supportive of lax moral behavior resulting in the social debauchery abhorred in the Muslim world - more than they hate conservatives. (Although conservatives generally support Israel more than Liberals do, so maybe its a toss-up). Assuredly, our enemies in this particular fight hate all strands of Americans, but it’s because we don’t force our women to walk around in burkas, we don’t execute homosexuals and we don’t consider non-Muslims as, at best, second-class citizens. It is certainly not because we poured water in the noses of three individuals plotting against our country.
- The Bush administration strengthened our enemies
The toppling of Saddam certainly strengthened Iran’s position in the Middle East, but who else has been strengthened because of policies espoused by the Bush administration? By all accounts, al Qaeda has been decimated by losses in Iraq and elsewhere. Saddam? Dead. Taliban? Not dead, but certainly not ”strengthened” in their position as compared to pre-2001.
One could certainly argue that our traditional nation-state rivals, such as Russia, China, North Korea (and perhaps Venezuela), have enjoyed this period where the US has been pre-occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, but I do not believe this is what the NY Times Editorial Board is arguing. (I doubt that the NY Times would refer to those countries as enemies in the first place.) So, who, exactly, has been strengthened during Bush’s reign of terror?
- The Bush administration has made the nation more vulnerable
How so? More vulnerable to a terrorist attack? I don’t think anyone could argue that we are more vulnerable now than we were on September 10, 2001. We are still - and will always be - vulnerable to some extent due to the nature of terrorism and the openness of our society; however, we are certainly not more vulnerable to that form of strike after George W. Bush.
More vulnerable to a traditional attack? Perhaps. As previously stated, with the Bush administration’s focus on Iraq & Afghanistan, our state rivals have certainly had time to achieve military and geopolitical gains while the US focused its attention elsewhere. And with the toppling of Saddam, Iran has certainly strengthened its position in the Middle East; however, they are not able to directly attack the U.S. and, while I am sure that the NY Times would abhor an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel from a humanitarian perspective, from a strategic perspective, I doubt it would shed any tears over its demise. If anything, for the Far Left conspiracy theorists who believe that all US foreign policy is controlled by Israel, such new found freedom of movement would no doubt be championed as making America more safe. So, I repeat, how is the nation more vulnerable now than it was before?
I presume that the NY Times Editorial Board is (as always) putting forth the Liberal talking point that America is less safe because Bush’s policies inflamed the world against us and created terrorists that would otherwise have been happy owning a small business somewhere in Baghdad or Kabul. I believe this is the main point that undergirds the reasoning of the Left and specifically of the Times’ article at hand. But where is the proof that it’s true? Are there enlistment records that show that al Qaeda has increased because of Bush’s policies?
Logically, I understand the argument: if US bombs fall on Afghan villages and kill a large number of civilians, then many of those civilians will become embittered against the US and will actively or passively support terrorism against it; some will even join in the fight directly and join terrorist groups. However, Clinton bombed various locations in the Muslim world. Is he guilty of inflaming the world against us and making us less safe? Or is it simply the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan that has made us less safe?
I am sure that those in the Muslim world already predisposed to committing terrorism find it easier to strike at the US - albeit indirectly - now that the arm of the US military is in Iraq and Afghanistan. But has this really caused anyone who wasn’t a terrorist to become a terrorist?
Many in the Muslim world have despised the US for some time now and it’s not because of policy disagreements, legitimate or otherwise. The Iranian Revolution occurred during a time when Carter, an appeasement-first, diplomacy-only President, was in office. Numerous attacks against US installations at home and abroad took place in the 1990s when Clinton was President and the US was engaged in conflict (Bosnia and Kosovo) on behalf of Muslims. If Muslim angst against the US is not tied to our specific policies, then, how will repudiating Bush’s policies lead to our increased safety?
Frankly, I think the NY Times Editorial Board is more upset because the Bush policies run counter to the Liberal establishment, with its capital city in Paris, rather than any firm conviction (or proof) that it has made the nation less safe.
Don’t misunderstand me. I value diplomacy, soft power and to some degree whether or not we are loved around the world. But being loved is not as important as being respected, particularly in the Muslim world where respect is the only real currency of power.
Further analysis at Powerline and the Weekly Standard.