February 05, 2004

Ah, the sun is in love with me today. See how she reaches out, and burns her image permanently into my retinas. Such a lovely stellar phenomenon: morning on the Hudson. I think the view would be better, though, if there were two enormous towers of some kind in the skyline, silhouetted against the sun's brilliance. That would be impressive.

Also impressive are the ambitions of one John Kerry, Vietnam!� vet, Vietnam!� protestor, Senator, and Presidential hopeful. Recently there was a murmur of disapproval about Kerry's statement that the threat of terrorism was "exaggerated." This Washington Times article, for example, led with:

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said during last night's Democratic presidential debate that the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated.

"I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way."

The knee-jerk response is as follows: the friends and families of 3,027 men, women and children disagree with you, Senator Kerry.

But let's restrain our knees and go to the transcript, shall we?

BROKAW: Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it.

Who is right?

KERRY: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing...

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one. Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two. I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three. I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

The reality of Kerry is, I think, worse than the anti-Kerry spin.

Brokaw was asking the Senator about terrorism. He responded by using a standard politician's tactic, which is to listen to the question being asked, and then answer a completely different question. Here's the question that Brokaw didn't ask, but which Kerry answered:

BROKAW: Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. You've been very critical of how the administration presented the case for war in Iraq. Do you feel that the administration was deceptive when it presented this case and, if so, in what way was it deceptive, specifically?

As I've noted, there's a difference between lying and being mistaken, which seems to be lost on both Senator Kerry and a significant portion of the electorate. That difference, if admitted, takes care of Kerry's numbers one, two, and three.

The jury is still out on the "linkage to Al Qaida," although there is enough evidence to postulate Iraq's general interaction with that group and others like it. Hussein's support of Palestinian terror in general and of specific terrorists is very well-documented, and includes providing sanctuary to Abu Nidal and Abdul Rahman Yasin, the brother of one of the terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993 and a co-conpirator in that attack. It is both reasonable and prudent to assume that, given the overall nastiness of the Hussein regime, Iraq and Islamic terror intersected in various ways.

But just look at Kerry's clumsy dodge. When presented with an opportunity to tell Americans whether he believes that their country is actually under threat or not he 1) repeats the "Bush Lied" trope, and 2) assures us that he'll keep America safe by re-adopting the "terrorism-as-crime" policy that was used by every administration prior to September 11, including the current one.

Here's what we, as voters, are left with: no admission of the reality of the threat, and a clear commitment to a security policy that is a demonstrable failure. All of this is tinted by his belief in the kind of internationalism that achieved such astounding success in the Balkans and Africa, did an excellent job of preventing the Pakistani government's top atomic weapons scientist from selling nuclear know-how to whoever had the cash, and effectively dissuaded Libya from its nuclear program.

America is facing a movement spread across several sovereign nations, with individual cells linked only by ideology and funding. One of Kerry's ideas is to engage the Middle East "economically, socially, [and] culturally," and he claims that failure to do so will result in the dreaded "clash of civilizations."

I have a message for you, Senator...it's been sitting in its little cubbyhole for quite some time. I thought you'd have received it by now. Here, let me dust it off, and read it to you...it's from an "O.B. Laden:"

[These] youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.

For some people, the "clash of civilizations" is well under way, and has been proceeding apace since 622. They invited us. It's their party. Although it may be the case that, as Edward Said wrote, September 11 was "the capture of big ideas (I use the word loosely) by a tiny band of crazed fanatics for criminal purposes," the fact remains that those crazed fanatics are fully committed to the idea that their civilization and ours are in conflict. On a planetary scale, the edges of what is called Islam and what is called the West are becoming ever-more blurred, particularly in Europe, with its sizable Muslim minorities. But this does not change the fact that one side of this conflict is treating it as a war between civilizations that has been going on for nearly 1,400 years, and will therefore bring appropriate energies to bear when fighting it.

In the same article, Said makes a rather facile comparison between the bin Ladenites and "cults like the Branch Davidians or the disciples of the Rev. Jim Jones at Guyana or the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo." In one sense, he's right--the Islamist terrorists are extremists, and are not to be confused with the overbroad category of Islam itself, however it is defined. In another, far more important sense, Said is utterly mistaken: there is not a single school in the United States, state-sponsored or otherwise, that espouses the philosophy of David Koresh or Jim Jones. Members of the Japanese ruling class do not funnel money into the coffers of Aum Shinrikyo. As a culture, we do not need to decide for ourselves whether the Branch Davidians deserve a place in national government, or if the ideas of Jim Jones should be taught to our children. The Japanese do not need to have a debate about whether Shoko Asahara was a hero or a villain.

This is not the case among a significant portion of Muslims both inside and outside of the Middle Eastern ruling class and its religious establishment. While we look at Jones, Koresh, and Asahara and immediately recognize cultic insanity, far too many Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere look at bin Laden and are undecided.

Senator John Kerry wants to allow these undecided Muslims all the time and space they need to come to a decision about the core values of their faith and their culture. Kerry's vision of America is of a benevolent, enlightened society, using its great wealth and power to encourage other societies to grow economically, socially, and culturally.

If we were living in the 19th century, I'd be all for that, to the extent that it did not interfere with our own prosperity and security. Great! Let's help them out, and light the way with our beacon of Reason, such as it is. At worst, a few fanatics will smuggle a few barrels of gunpowder into a hotel in some city in the desert and blow it up. Then we might have to go in and help capture the local extremists, while providing generous incentives to the developing governments of the Middle East, showing them that the way to prosperity lies in emphasizing the peaceful elements of their faith and shunning extremism. Following our gentle, non-imperialist example, they'd come around eventually, even if they had to undergo an unpleasant civil war. Meanwhile, we'd be safe over here, bordered by oceans and allies.

But this isn't the 19th century. This is the 21st century, and those few fanatics could sneak a barrel of VX nerve agent into a city and kill thousands while President Kerry pursues his enlightened, internationalist vision of diplomatic persuasion. They could acquire a nuclear device and kill tens of thousands while he issues their arrest warrants. Maybe that risk is acceptable to him, but it's certainly not acceptable to me. Not when I look at the Manhattan skyline as often as I do.

There are well over a billion Muslims in the world today, and the vast majority of them don't live in the Middle East. But the heart of the faith beats in the sands of Saudi Arabia, and any poison brewed there is circulated throughout dar al-Islam. The Islam of the Arabs has simply run out of time to reform itself free of interference. The industrialized technology of destruction--invented by Europe and, admittedly, perfected by America--has extended the reach of fanatical ideas and internal conflicts far beyond their native borders. We can't put that djinn back into the lamp, however much we might wish to.

The quickest and most effective methods of persuasion can also be the most brutal. This is the tragedy and the truth of the matter.

We no longer have the luxury of patient diplomacy and toothless "law enforcement." Senator Kerry is foolish to think that we do, and that is no exaggeration.