Posted on 07/22/2004 5:44:51 AM PDT by SJackson
Great leaders are sometimes defeated not by their enemies abroad but by their constituents at home. That's what happened to prime minister Winston Churchill immediately after he led Great Britain in overcoming Nazi Germany during World War II.
Yet in the first election after the conflict, it mattered little that Churchill symbolized victory over Hitler's Third Reich. The voters sent him packing.
General Charles de Gaulle was also forced to return to his Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises home after the Second World War. (Voters eventually brought him back out of retirement). Again, no one cared that De Gaulle symbolized Free France.
Constituents seemingly forgot that after the French surrender to the Nazis in 1940 and the establishment of the Vichy government of collaborators, De Gaulle embodied the very essence of the French resistance.
Which brings me to this year's US presidential race between George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry. You might say that if Churchill and De Gaulle could be driven from office after their achievements, Bush could safely be sent home, be succeeded by Kerry, and it wouldn't be the end of the world.
After all, Bush has successfully destroyed the terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan, eliminated the threat of global terror posed by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and brought the dictator to trial.
However, there is no comparison.
Churchill and De Gaulle were sent into political exile after their war ended. They only lost power after the Allies, led by the US, had defeated Nazi fascism by pursuing the Wermacht and the SS to Hitler's bunker in Berlin.
But today's war against Muslim fascism is still very much in progress. And this is a war of a different kind. It entails indiscriminate jihadist attacks on civilians to an extent not seen before by modern civilization. The attacking barbarians cut the throats of their innocent victims, people such as journalist Daniel Pearl and others, and thus achieve hero status in the eyes of tens – perhaps even hundreds – of millions of other Muslims.
Their offensive stretches from New York to Madrid, from Paris to Istanbul, and from Jerusalem to Jiddah.
So if President Bush fails in his reelection bid this November, it will be seen as a tremendous victory for extremist Islam and for supporters of terrorism and dictatorship in the Arab and Muslim world.
It would, of course, be impolitic to use this argument to try to sway voters to Bush during an election campaign. Nevertheless, my analysis is based on how I see the global equation, resulting from a series of grave events set in motion since 9/11.
Meanwhile, Bush's political opponents are attempting to exploit the conclusions of the various official Washington inquiries into the failures that contributed to the attacks on New York and Washington.
Their goal is to assign responsibility to Bush for the massacres. In point of fact, the failures should be attributed to Bush's predecessors in the White House.
Moreover, the Western democracies are fortunate that Bush was the first leader to identify the danger of extremist Muslim global terror.
But for doing that, Bush now personifies the offensive on terrorism and its leaders, from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein to Abu Mosab Al-Zarkawi. And, needless to say, in the non-democratic Muslim and Arab world, this symbolism takes on an entirely different meaning.
If Bush loses the election, the fanatics will celebrate his loss as a victory in their war against the greatest power in the world. It doesn't matter that John Kerry may be forced to continue Bush's global war against terrorism or that Kerry may retract conciliatory-sounding election promises.
The very fact of a Bush defeat will be interpreted in the fevered, fanatical minds of millions of jihadists and their supporters to mean that their path of sowing terror and death is the right one.
A Bush loss could well give renewed momentum for an al-Qaida offensive.
This prognosis should worry American voters who care about their country's security. Consequently, however difficult it may be for voters brought up on democratic values to acknowledge, they should be cognizant of the extraordinary significance of changing supreme commanders in wartime.
And they should especially think about how a Bush loss would likely play in the eyes of America's enemies.
The writer is the Mideast correspondent of The New York Post.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
A Kerry win worries me. The Islamofascists attacked very early in Bush's term probably because of a perceived idea that he was not popular, didn't have an popular mandate, and messy election. They didn't think he would respond in the manner he did.
I don't believe they will attack before the election. They want Kerry and democrats in power. After the democrats take office will be an optimum time to attack since they know Kerry is indecisive and the democrats are against intervention.
Great article.
I am convinced that if Chirac had been in power during WWII, he not only would have been a Vichy leader and known of the holocaust, but would have actively participated in it.
Bump. Good read.
Today, we probably would have two separate countries where we now have one!
I worry about an attack on NYC during the Republican convention. AQ will not attack Boston, IMO, because the Democrat ticket is their hope for survival. A successful attack on NY will show US vulnerability and destroy the opposition.
It would, of course, be impolitic to use this argument to try to sway voters to Bush during an election campaign.
Why would this be impolitic? Appealing to voters' self interest is a time-honored political tradition, and I see little constituency in this country for living under sharia.
Like hell. I'm just distrustful of all politicians and believe that most will stoop to anything to stay in power. To say that it is dangerous to change leadership because we are at war just encourages politicians, of whatever stripe, to start wars.
I doubt that you could make the case, particularly to those leaning to Kerry. It's much better to concentrate on the issues favorable to Bush. For example, war leadership is a big one, but probably better addressed from a positive perspective rather than "Osama supports Kerry".
From what I'm reading around the web, women prefer Kerry...African-Americans prefer Kerry...Hispanics prefer Kerry...Muslims prefer Kerry...union workers...seniors...Jewish...Catholic...college students...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.