Where To Go From Here?
In his usual lucid manner, Michael Barone reviews the logic that brought us where we are in the Middle East, and finds it still persuasive, compared to the alternatives:
I can remember reading a couple of years ago an argument that the reason George W. Bush followed the recommendations of the so-called neoconservatives–in Afghanistan as well as Iraq–is that the neoconservatives had an analysis of and a plan of action for dealing with Islamofascist terrorists and their state sponsors and aiders and abettors; and that no one else did.
That, of course, is our often-expressed view. President Bush has offered a long-term plan to deal with the scourge of Islamic terror. No one has so far offered a plausible alternative, as Michael argues:
In contrast, on the left we heard after September 11 some anguished voices asking, "Why do they hate us?" But many on the left immediately recognized that what they hated us for was our toleration and freedoms–the very things those on the left like most about our society. Shall we order women to wear veils and order the death by stoning of homosexuals in order to appease the perpetrators of September 11? Obviously not.
The "realist" prescription was equally barren; as we've said before, when anyone offers an alternative to Bush's strategy of bringing reform to the Arab world, the proposal always comes down to selling out Israel. Apart from obvious moral considerations, it is a fantasy to think that such a sellout would do any good:
Now the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group has recommended the same thing but has not met with great cheers: It just seems implausible that Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq are going to quit killing each other because we pressure the Israelis to give up the West Bank to a bunch of people who are (as the Palestinians in Gaza are proving) determined to exterminate them.
Barone contrasts two recent op-eds by Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama. Obama emphasizes his own early opposition to the war in Iraq, but offers to coherent path forward:
Obama says we are "faced with a quagmire to which there are no good answers...." The Iraqis must "step up," in his view, though he doesn't express much in the way of confidence that this will happen. This is a counsel of something like despair.
Lieberman's approach holds out at least the hope of success:
Lieberman, on the other hand, offers what he characterizes as the possibility–though by no means the certainty–of improvement and victory.I think his approach is more in line with the American character.
Michael notes that some Europeans are content to accept a level of terrorism that just about all Americans consider unacceptable:
There are writers in Europe who argue that the threat of terrorism is just a nuisance. Sure, you get a 9/11 or a London 7/7 attack every so often and a bunch of people die; but your civilization goes on, and the Islamofascists aren't really going to take it over. We put up with a lot of deaths in traffic accidents and we can put up with a lot of deaths in terrorist attacks.
Michael notes that this passive approach overlooks the risk that terrorists may eventually get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. I would add that there is a fundamental difference between car accidents and terrorist attacks: we don't blame auto accidents on automobiles. But terror attacks are not accidents. Americans blame the terrorists and want to retaliate.
Barone's conclusion is, I think, exactly right. The fact is that, notwithstanding incessant criticism of the administration's policies, we are in the same position as in 2001: no one has offered a constructive and plausible alternative to the President's long-term strategy of bringing freedom and reform to the Arab world:
Figuring out how to fight back and prevail is not easy and there will be errors along the way (as there have been in all our wars, and in great abundance). But it's better than sitting back and seeing what is the worst they can do to you.
To comment on this post, go here.
