Posted on 07/13/2006 4:46:53 AM PDT by Tolik
The Bush administration should stop repeating that it is fighting the war on terror for truth, justice and the American way. Instead, the president and his staff should be blunt and explain that, since Sept. 11, it has had to choose between options that are bad or far worse.
By all means, the administration should invite critics to suggest constructive alternatives to the way it's handled this war. But it should also point out that those who have honed in on flaws in current U.S. anti-terror policies have so far been bereft of other workable ideas.
Take the uniform-less and stateless terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay. To be sure, there are alternatives to the current U.S. policy, but are they any better? Should we try hundreds of them in American courts like Zacarias Moussaoui or in international tribunals as the Europeans attempted with Slobodan Milosevic? Or send them home to face torture in autocracies like Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Or do we ship the terrorists back to countries that would simply declare them heroes and let them go?
And can the critics offer better ways to track terrorists than through wiretapping and surveillance? How, otherwise, would one have learned in time about those in Miami who plotted to take down the Sears Tower, or the Lebanese cadre who planned to blow up the Holland Tunnel?
The Bush administration can also use history to show that, despite what detractors say, its techniques aren't so unreasonable. It's worth reminding the American public that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and shut down newspapers; that Woodrow Wilson imprisoned prominent dissenters like Eugene Debs; and that Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese-American citizens and secret military tribunals for German saboteurs (six of whom were executed) and allowed for the cover-up of military catastrophes (such as the hundreds killed during training exercises for the Normandy landings).
In other words, there's an advantage to providing historical perspective by engaging one's critics and answering their charges. The public, for example, should be informed that the accusation that the U.S. went into Iraq for oil ("no blood for oil," as the slogan goes) is not merely inaccurate, but crazy. For starters, gas prices skyrocketed once we induced risky change in the Middle East. How does that benefit the American people? Meanwhile, because of the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's energy sector has been purged of corruption (such as the U.N.'s scandal-plagued oil-for-food program).
In Europe, a poll recently showed that people there view the U.S. as a greater threat than Iran. If this is the case, is it not time to politely suggest to our "allies" that many of our half-century-old military bases in prosperous Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain have outlived their usefulness?
The Arab world's perennial grievances against the United States don't hold up either, given that America has saved Muslims in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait and Somalia, and provided billions in aid to Egyptians, Jordanians and Palestinians.
The Bush administration would also be in the right to wonder aloud whether its domestic critics wish to go back to bombing away without consulting the U.S. Congress or the United Nations as we did in the Balkans. And when Americans are butchered, are we to skedaddle, as both Presidents Reagan and Clinton did, from Lebanon and Somalia respectively?
Our present muscular policy - and we also hear this all too infrequently - grew out of just such past bipartisan inaction that led to 3,000 murdered Americans. The truth is that the old way of doing business, rightly or wrongly, was seen by jihadists as encouragement to up the ante with Sept. 11.
Ultimately, the Bush administration needs to do a better job of presenting this current war in a far larger context. Jihadists of the Arab world for decades have been at war not with George Bush alone, but with modernity itself. The radical Middle East street may be fascinated by the Internet, satellite television, ATMs and cell phones - but not by the foreign anathema of democracies, religious tolerance, free markets and gender equality that ultimately accounts for such goodies.
Here at home, we are witnessing the end of the multicultural dogma. Yes, there are really evil people who wish to kill us for who we are, not what we do - and they embrace cultural assumptions that are not just different from our own, but, let us be honest enough to admit it, far worse.
So, there are many fronts in our struggle against Islamic terrorists from the 7th century. The American people must be reminded of our challenges constantly in lieu of platitudes about the inevitable triumph of freedom and democracy. In short, our government should provide much more explanation of this complex war and far less simple declarations about it.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/ NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Yeah President Bush vastly overestimates the average voters intellegence. He need to explain to them every day in little words why we should want to kill people who fly planes into building full of Americans.
"and they embrace cultural assumptions that are not just different from our own, but, let us be honest enough to admit it, far worse."
As long as we're admitting it, why don't we just say their "cultural assumptions" are depraved, alien, and downright evil.
It's not just radical Muslims, it's Islam and the Koran that are the problems.
Excellent article. Interestingly, and for the first time, some TV talking heads are saying the same thing, as well as that GW should clearly name the enemy -- Islam/Muslims. Time for the gloves to come off.
Evidently democrats and elitist Liberals at the NYTimes need help understanding why we'd want to kill people who fly planes into buildings full of Americans.
"Bush Needs to Better Explain Complex Terror War"
Bush is too busy flip flopping to explain anything (if he had the ability). A previously strong man now appears weak and pathetic (Kerry transformation syndrome).
If you don't get it by now, you're either stupid, a bush-hater or hopeless!
The American people get it and don't need an explaination when you got terrorist blowing up innocent people...DA!
By all means, the administration should invite critics to suggest constructive alternatives to the way it's handled this war. But it should also point out that those who have honed in on flaws in current U.S. anti-terror policies have so far been bereft of other workable ideas.
They have workable ideas? Could've fooled me.
Their Ideas....Bush Lied, People Died....Bush Lied, People Died....Bush Lied, People Died.
Bush is too busy flip flopping to explain anything (if he had the ability).
You do understand that there is no cash prize for making the stupid statement of the day.
On the war just how has he "flip flopped"?
>>>>The Bush administration should stop repeating that it is fighting the war on terror for truth, justice and the American way. Instead, the president and his staff should be blunt and explain that, since Sept. 11, it has had to choose between options that are bad or far worse.
I agree with this. With the reference to Gitmo, I do not feel that is the one area that does not need to be explained better. They are prisoners of war and that is all we need to know.
But, I really and strongly feel the administration needs to do more to help people understand the human trafficking issue. Human trafficking has always been on the table as a component of the WOT. The President said that is something he would be putting a halt to in the SOTU. But, he as not given the citizens a full understanding of the depth of smuggling and trafficking nor a full understanding of the slave status people are held in right here on US soil.
I believe if people had a more in depth perception of what has been going on, (illegal) immigration opinions would be better formed.
Hey Vic, Bush hasn't got time to sit around explaining the WOT to emptyheaded elistist prix like you JUST did in your article!If you don't get it by now, you're either stupid, a bush-hater or hopeless!
The American people get it and don't need an explaination when you got terrorist blowing up innocent people...DA!
I applaud your enthusiasm. But, I think you have no idea what Hanson writes and where he stands. Please, do yourself a favor and read anything in his archives. Your anger is misplaced by a mile.
>>>>some TV talking heads are saying the same thing, as well as that GW should clearly name the enemy -- Islam/Muslims
I agree with this too; but it isn't just Islam. The 'SDS' component is vastly intertwined. May even have been the enabler.
I think it is time to name the enemy.
>>>Evidently democrats and elitist Liberals at the NYTimes need help understanding why we'd want to kill people who fly planes into buildings full of Americans.
Why? Or, IMO, 'helped'.
So why do the majority of Americans now view the invasion of Iraq as a mistake? Why does one of our two major parties want us to leave as soon as possible and grant terrorists legal rights? Why do the Dems and some RINOs want to restrict such programs as the terrorist surveilance program, the Patriot Act, and other measures aimed at defeating the enemy?
The American people have a short attention span. 9/11 is a distant memory. We now have such kook theories that the USG actually took down the WTC becoming mainstream. Bush has not done a good job of linking Iraq to the WOT. He has failed to release and publicize AQ connections to Saddam. VDH is right on the mark.
"On the war just how has he "flip flopped"?"
How about giving Geneva Convention protection to terrorists captured in battle? Remember when they were no entitled to protection because they were "unlawful combatants".
And what did the Supreme Court say? I would bet that he was/is less than thrilled with their ruling, but what is he suppoed to do.
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.