First, I agree that there's nothing wrong conceptually in saying that no response should be taken off the table. I'd be fine if that's all Tancredo had said in response to questions.
But that's not what happened. He was asked a question about how we'd respond if some of our cities were nuked. His first response was "bomb Mecca". I did not think that was a well-thought out response for the reasons I've stated. Namely, that holding individual nations responsible for terrorist activities that originate within their borders is, by far, not only the course of action most likely to benefit us, but also the least likely to antagonize both friends and neutrals.
I agree that being "PC" shouldn't override our national interest. But the fact is that we need allies in this war. Not only friendly nations such as Britain, but those responsible moslems within those radical nations. If we need to do something to protect ourselves, and that action will piss those people off, well, too bad. I agree with Tancredo that we shouldn't be concerned about their feelings when our national interest is at stake.
But the Mecca comment was unnecessary. Why toss that out there rather than simply reiterating what the Administration has been saying about holding host governments responsible? It's not a case of being a wimp, because we're still talking about nuking cities. But its a much smarter response because it sends just as tough a message without unnecessarily pissing off friends and potential allies.
Tancredo's had a bunch of opportunities to clarify his initial remarks by pointing to other options, like holding host governments responsible. But he hasn't. Basically, he's just flipping the bird to everyone, and saying "if you don't like it, too bad."
Like I said, I don't mind pissing people off if its necessary. Shoot at our guys from a mosque, and that mosque should get hammered regardless of whom it pisses off. But with Tancredo and some of the people defending his comments, I'm getting the sense that they like the fact that what he said was controversial. It's like they don't care who we antagonize, screw them all.
That may make us feel better at some level, but its only common sense that its better to fight a war with some allies than alone. As I've said, I think the key to success in the war against terror is getting Arab governments to crackdown internally. It's the most important thing. And I don't delude myself into believing that they're going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. I think intimidation and believable threats are key. We've got to bully them, and make them fear us more than the terrorists.
But I also recognize the political reality in some of those countries that cooperating with the U.S. isn't too popular. And that those leaders who do cooperate sometimes put themselves at great personal risk. Musharraf is one example, with the eight assassination attempts by moslem radicals. Why make their jobs even more difficult by making public threats likely to antagonize their own people?
That's my problem with Tancredo. He doesn't appear to care who he pisses off, even if it makes it more difficult for us to gain cooperation from Arab governments. I want to win this war, not just make myself feel better by talking tough and pissing people off for no reason.
' He was asked a question about how we'd respond if some of our cities were nuked. His first response was "bomb Mecca". '
That was a strong first reaction, too. We are, after all, talking about a nuclear attack on the US. It was tough. That's the kind of man I want to fight al qaeda. That's the kind of man who can rally Americans behind the war.
Here's what a lot of 'thoughtful moderates sound like: "Uhhh.... ehhh... er.... uh..... well perhaps.... ehhhh..."
Well, I think that people recently killed deserve better than the fiction that the Saudis and other "Arab governments" pretend to cooperate with us and we pretend not to know that they continue to fund terrorism world wide, and to tolerate training camps in their countries.
But that's just me.
Time for a change.