The War on the War on Terror

The American Spectator ^ | 09 February 2004 | P. David Hornik

[Lando Lincoln]

JERUSALEM -- I turn on CNN, and I see people being grilled -- Bush and Blair. What did you know, and when did you know it? If you had known then what you know now, would you have done what you did? Or did you already know it, and pull a big hoax on all of us?

The War on Terror is barely two years old, and already the two statesmen mainly responsible for waging it are in the dock. The grim media interrogators, our self-appointed "representatives," fire questions at them. The opposition parties sling mud at them. And one can't blame it all on the Left: Britain's Conservative Party is trying to conserve its prowar stance at the same time that it pillories Blair.

Since Vietnam, things have had a way of working out this way. In that conflict, the "moral" castigation of America mounted, Nixon found himself in the Watergate dock, and finally all U.S. forces were yanked from the arena -- setting the stage for the boat people, the "reeducation centers," and the Cambodian holocaust. Along came smiling Jimmy Carter, proclaiming peace on earth, only to be stunned by evidence -- the Iran hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan -- that there were still bad guys out there unimpressed by all that American "niceness."

A couple of years later Israel tried to wage a war on terror in Lebanon, but after a few months it found itself in the dock over the Sabra and Shatilah massacres. Forgotten -- actually, hardly anyone ever cared -- was the PLO's brutal occupation of southern Lebanon; now all the rage was Israel's alleged sins. Meanwhile, the war's one significant achievement -- the exile of Arafat and his gang to Tunis, creating breathing space for Palestinian moderacy -- was forgotten, too; and in 1993 an Israeli Labor government revived the PLO, brought it here, and plunged Israel into its ongoing nightmare.

Reagan, in the 1980s, had to deal with calumny and hysteria over Pershings in Europe and a tough anti-Soviet line, until -- what, ho! -- the Soviets collapsed. The open, undeniable brutality of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the threat to oil, made it easier -- relatively -- for Bush Sr. in the first Gulf War; Clinton's status as a beloved Democrat made it easier for him in Bosnia and Kosovo.

But the general pattern has been that democratic leaders who wage war on terrorists, totalitarians, enemies of freedom, are guilty until proven innocent. Never more so than now, when alleged intelligence failures, alleged deceptions, are all the rage. The Free World turns in, snarling, upon itself.

Meanwhile, ricin shows up in the U.S. Senate. Eight flights from Europe to the U.S. get canceled in one day because of intelligence tips that they'll get blown to bits. Bombers kill forty in Moscow; seventy in twin attacks in Kurdistan. A bus bombing in Jerusalem hardly registers anymore. Ho-hum, I never promised you a rose garden. But Bush and Blair are in the dock, and grim committees are searching every cranny of what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did.

Should citizens of democracies blindly follow their leaders? Of course not. Do those leaders never do anything wrong? Of course not. Bush and Blair may have oversold the WMD threat (at least, it's easy to say now; I wasn't saying it then). America's incremental approach to Vietnam looks -- in hindsight -- unwise; it should either have stayed out, or fought to win -- that's the view from 2004. Israel shouldn't have let the Phalanges militiamen into those camps -- now, at least, it seems clear.

No, the leaders of democracies are mortals; they err, they misjudge situations, they take wrong tacks. But I wonder if, in wartime, we shouldn't give them more leeway, as they used to do in the pre-Vietnam era. The greater humility and deference that populations -- and even the media -- showed their leaders in those days was a way of acknowledging that these guys had the toughest job, that if we were the ones making all those decisions, we wouldn't get them all right either. It was also a way of maintaining a basic moral perspective, a basic distinction between elected, civilized leaders and deadly enemies.

If the domestic opponents of Bush and Blair were claiming that they can manage the War on Terror more effectively, that would be one thing. But most of them, instead, are casting doubt on whether this war is necessary at all -- and using a flap about WMD and intelligence to try and delegitimize Bush and Blair altogether. Considering the very real threats we continue to face from al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et al., that's what really scares me.

P. David Hornik is a writer and translator in Jerusalem.

[Lando Lincoln]

Lando

[Conspiracy Guy]

Considering the very real threats we continue to face from al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et al., that's what really scares me.

Add the DNC, Germany, France, .....

CG

[FlipWilson]

To the left, the real enemies are those that stand in the way of Socialism. It matters not if a million people die in an islamofacist sponsored holocaust so long as each one of those people had state sponsored healthcare. September 11, 2001 was a tradgedy because 2,800 people died. To the Left, September 11th was a tradgedy because it boosted the popularity of George Bush.

[Michael81Dus]

I feel sorry for you that you mention the Democrats, Germany and France in one breath with Al Quaida, Iran, N Korea, Pakistan and the terrorist-financing Royals from Arabia.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I feel sorry for you that you do not realize that it is one long connected chain. Study it and prove that I am wrong. Or do not respond.

CG

[omega4412]

"I feel sorry for you that you mention the Democrats, Germany and France in one breath with Al Quaida, Iran, N Korea, Pakistan and the terrorist-financing Royals from Arabia."

The difference is like the one in the Cold War between Communists and anti-anti-Communists.

[StarCMC]

On the nose, CG, on the nose!!

[lainde]

bttt

[Michael81Dus]

Ehm... correct me if I´m wrong, but didn´t Senator John Kerry voted FOR the war against Iraq in Congress? And didn´t Germany and France have large deployments of troops engaged in the war on terrorism? Is it just me or is there anybody else out there who thinks that the war on terrorism is by far not only fought in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and on other places in the world? I should prove you that Germany, France and the Democrats are not in a long connected chain with real terrorists? Sorry, dude, but as far as I remember, someone is as long innocent unless the GUILT is proven, not vice versa. It´s up to you to prove that the DNC, Germans and French are not supportive for war on terrorism.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Hey Michael!

Devil's Advocate here . . .

Please explain how Germany's paying terrorists to release hostages discourages such things in the future (specifically the Sahara Hostages and the Philipean Hostages).

Bonus Question: Please explain how Germany's / the EU's asylum for the hostage takers from Bethlehem is a part of the war on terror.

[PS - I do NOT deny that Germany does help!]

[Michael81Dus]

LOL, yeah, nice questions. Too bad for you that the Algerian authorities announced recently that they´ve "neutralised" the kidnappers.

http://www.phoenix.de/ereig/exp/18557/

And, I may tell you that there was no other way to free the hostages. Same in the Philippines. We had to accept their conditions to get our citizens back, and after that there was no reason left to hesitate in neutralising them. :-) I was in contact with German government officials on that... spyplanes controlled the areas, but there was just no chance to get nearer than a few hundred metres.

I don´t know the Bethlehem story. I´m probably too young for that.

[An.American.Expatriate]

"There was no other way to free the hostages..." so Germany surrenderd?

The fact the the hostage takers were later "neutralised" is irrelevant. Did Germany get it's money back? If not, that money is being used to finance future terrorism. Also, giving in to such demands can only encourage more such actions in the future (and put's the lives of other hostages at risk, ie.e the ones from countries which hold out]

Next, the Bethlehem incident is quite recent (two years??), so not before your time at all . . . Several "PLO" thugs took hostages (in the Church) during an uprising - They surrenderd on condition that they be givien asylum in the EU - which the EU acecepted wholeheartedly.

Lastly, where is the outrage in Europe that these terrorists were not given due process??

[Miss Marple]

I am not going to discuss Germany, which has had lots of troops deployed in Afghanistan.

However, the American democrats are waging an intense campaign for the presidency and in the process accusing the president of lying about Iraq, twisting intelligence, saying that we didn't need to go into Iraq to get rid of Saddam, and although Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, Kerry denied funding the troops in IraqI

The leftists have completely taken over the democrat party and are mounting an anti-war campaign. Kerry has said that this is a law-enforcement problem rather than a military one. He also has said that the risk of terror attacks is overblown. THAT is why I say that the democrats do not support the war on terror.

[Michael81Dus]

I´m not trying to convince you that it was the right step to get the hostages free by paying money. You know that I´m not supportive about giving in to terrorists, we talked about the incident last year. However, I´m trying to make you understanding why the government acted the way it did. It saved the lives of the hostages. We don´t know what comes in future. We can say that the hostages are free and that several terrorists are dead. You understand it, even though you don´t agree with it, fine.

I remember the Bethlehem incident. I thought it happened before the 2nd Intifada started in 2000. So it was 1999??
Giving asylum is by far better than having dozens of deads. Israel has freed several hundreds terrorists recently for the life of one Israeli.

[Michael81Dus]

Ok, I agree with you that leftists tend to give in to terrorism and that they´re often unwilling to show determination and resolveness when necessary, although I know a positive example, too. Clinton should have eliminated Al Quaida in the 90´s, 9/11/01 maybe never had happened. It seems as if they´re rather willing to underestimate the risks of global terrorism than to accept eventually exaggerated security.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Pandering and appeasement are the primary contribution of the democrats. Starting with Carter's handling of the Iran Crisis. It resumed with Clinton's half-hearted response to the Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, etc.... Regardless of how he voted, Kerry is now calling the whole thing a police problem not a military problem.

It is becoming much more apparent publicly that the French, the Germans, and the Russians had much to lose in Iraq. A lot of hanky panky (that we suspected) over the oil for food program is coming to light. Mostly they made Saddam richer through violations of UN sanctioned measures. So add the UN to my list as well.

In the war on terror doing nothing is the most dangerous thing to do. Doing nothing is what the democrats have done in the past and they would like to continue. The terrorists and the Saddams of the world have been encouraged to do their evil because Carter and Clinton led them to believe that the US did not have the stomach to come after them.

If you can't see it then vote for Kerry and watch things get exponentially worse. I am not a Bushbot or a Right Wing Extremist. I am an open minded Moderate. I have spent my life studying cause and effect. The parties I mentioned may not have blood on their hands but the provided the environment for the bloodletting.

CG

[Conspiracy Guy]

Thank you.

CG

[Michael81Dus]

Thank you for confusing me with a native US citizen, I take this as a compliment. :-)

As you can read in my reply to Miss Marple I agree that the Democrats - or leftists worldwide - tend to be less determined in their fight against terrorism. However, I do not doubt that their intentions are good. They just lack a quantity of resolution, just like Clinton in the Nineties on Osama bin Laden.

Regarding the support of the axis of weasels for Saddam: I have said it on another thread, that I highly doubt that the German government approved violations of the sanctions imposed on Iraq. Dozens of German businessmen were prosecuted for their criminal trade with Iraq.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I seldom look at profile pages so I did not know your nationality. All Germans are not responsible for the wrong doing of a few. No more so than all Americans being responsible for the wrong doing of a few.

At the minimum the Democrats when in power, the German Government, the French Government, the Russians, etc.. are guilty of pandering.

Remember, pandering is not holding the knife or stabbing the victim. It providing the knife or turning a blind eye to the use of the knife.

In the 60's we had a saying, "If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem." The saying was the cry of anti-war/anti-government groups in the US. I was not among them and voluntarily served my country during the Viet Nam War.

But the phrase is so true "If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Should be the Anti-pandering war cry.

I have to go be part of the solution with some of my clients now. Later.

CG

[Michael81Dus]

I´m relieved you make a distinction between pandering and the actual offense. I´m still convinced that France and Germany are part of the solution, there´s a good cooperation among the intel´s and the militaries.
However, I pay you respect for having fought in Vietnam.