We need a "New Liberalism" that fights America's enemies decisively

LINK: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=whKP5U%2BbbaxbirV9FQhQuh%3D%3D

There's a great article by Peter Beinart on The New Republic website arguing for the ascendancy of a "New Liberalism" that is based off of the model envisioned by Harry Truman and other anti-totalitarian Democrats of yesteryear.

SNIP: Today, three years after September 11 brought the United States face-to-face with a new totalitarian threat, liberalism has still not "been fundamentally reshaped" by the experience. On the right, a "historical re-education" has indeed occurred--replacing the isolationism of the Gingrich Congress with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's near-theological faith in the transformative capacity of U.S. military might. But American liberalism, as defined by its activist organizations, remains largely what it was in the 1990s--a collection of domestic interests and concerns.

SNIP: On health care, gay rights, and the environment, there is a positive vision, articulated with passion. But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.

SNIP: Michael Moore views totalitarian Islam the way Wallace viewed communism: As a phantom, a ruse employed by the only enemies that matter, those on the right. Saudi extremists may have brought down the Twin Towers, but the real menace is the Carlyle Group. Today, most liberals naïvely consider Moore a useful ally, a bomb-thrower against a right-wing that deserves to be torched. What they do not understand is that his real casualties are on the decent left.

SNIP: When Moore opposes the war against the Taliban, he casts doubt upon the sincerity of liberals who say they opposed the Iraq war because they wanted to win in Afghanistan first. When Moore says terrorism should be no greater a national concern than car accidents or pneumonia, he makes it harder for liberals to claim that their belief in civil liberties does not imply a diminished vigilance against Al Qaeda.

Is there still room in the Democratic Party for liberals who are still determined to take the fight to Al-Qaeda effectively and decisively? Is there still room for the Joe Liebermans, Joe Bidens, Bob Grahams, and John Kerrys in the party structure? Being liberal doesn't necessarily require a knee-jerk reflex against the military.

That's why I enthusiastically supported John Kerry for president. He developed a plan to truly keep America stronger at home and more respected in the world. He understood that we face grave threats and that we need to address them with firmess, instead of George W. Bush's recklessness.

If we are to make our message resonant among the national electorate once again, we should once again follow the examples of past Democrats such as Harry Truman and John Kennedy, who were not afraid to stand toe to toe with America's enemies.

for fighting Terra? No. They've just scared already xenophobic Americans shitless into thinking Republicans are the only ones tough enough to stand up to the 'tursts.

I am tired of all these DLC crackpots.

their only decisiveness comes in making sure that the Republicans win and the Democrats lose. They are not "liberals" they are DINOS.

Instead of bashing michael Moore, why the hell aren't they out there fighting for Social Security tooth and nail? Why aren't they working to preserve democracy instead of lamblasting the progressives grassroots in their own party.

He looks like he would be young enough for Guard duty in Afghanistan. Whats stopping him?

This article sums it up fairly well, to me. I don't agree with his comments about jihad and a few other things. But he paints a global picture that seems accurate, when allegiance to the State breaks down, other allegiances take its place which creates a different kind of warfare. Bush's solution of military assault won't work. The author proposes isolation and defense, allowing outside cultural factions to turn against themselves. John Kerry proposed marginalizing the terrorist groups, from both the local and international communities, instead of marginalizing ourselves. It was a great read though, a little long to slog through.

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_strategic_defense.htm

"...Fourth Generation war marks the greatest dialectically qualitative change in the conduct of war since the Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years War in 1648. It has three central characteristics:

The loss of the state's monopoly on war and on the first loyalty of its citizens and the rise of non-state entities that command people’s primary loyalty and that wage war. These entities may be gangs, religions, races and ethnic groups within races, localities, tribes, business enterprises, ideologies—the variety is almost limitless;

A return to a world of cultures, not, merely states, in conflict; and

The manifestation of both developments—the decline of the state and the rise of alternate, often cultural, primary loyalties—not only “over there,” but in America itself..."

That is to say, the US in the sense of our unelected elite as opposed to the rest of us poor saps who just live here. They've propped it up from day one in Saudi Arabia, and supported dictators and various other unelected military strongmen in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, UAE and Pakistan.

Al Qaeda was created with significant aid from the US--before Pakistan and the US started supporting the internationalization of jihad in Afghanistan and the 80s, Islamic fundie groups were strictly national and regional. Hezbollah cared about nothing except getting Israel out of Lebanon--in fact didn't even exist until Israel invaded. Hamas cared for nothing except Palestinian issues, and was in fact supported in its early days by Israel, which intended to divide the secular PLO by alienating Palestinian Christians. The Islamists in Afghanistan initially only wanted the Russians the hell out--it was Brzezinski's brilliant idea (fully implemented by Reagan and Bush the 1st) to recruit nutcases from all over the Islamic world who made it just one stop on a world jihadi tour that eventually included Sudan, the Balkans and Chechnya. Hell, they even recruited in the US, ferchrissakes! Without that effort, Osama bin Forgotten wouldn't have gotten his Rolodex fattened up with all those international addresses in the first place.

in that position that I don't know where to start. Among them, that US enemies spring out of nowhere...we are blameless. No mention of the many totalitarian torturers and Islamic Fundamentalists we supported in the Middle East in our "anti-communist" "fight for freedom and democracy." Support that has come back to haunt us.

No mention of the conflation in foreign policy of opposition to totalitarianism and promotion of capitalism.

The article does not question whether or not we have the right to use military force and slaughter hundreds of thousands of people in pursuit of economic and political goals. It mentions the thousands of Americans killed by Islamic Fundamentalists on 9/11, but not the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - who posed no aggressive threat to us - killed by the US.

I could go on but I don't really have the energy.

One of my favourite movies of all time! :thumbsup:

or laugh, I don't know.

I've always viewed The Ref as political allegory--but not exactly. Nothing I can put a finger on. It seems to distill the essence of key political debates of the 90's, but perhaps it's rather just a good battle of the sexes.

That rant is dead-on when dealing with Beinart (a Zell-like DINO) too.

the MOST fact selective journalist/editorialist passing himself off as a liberal thinker.
a pig in a liberal costume.

The first thing that caught my eye: "his real casualties are on the decent left." The 'decent' left? Well...I guess that leaves out the indecent liberals. One could find this type of 'journalism' on the front page of Worldnetdaily.

This piece of garbage article is nothing more than a hit piece on Moore and liberals in general. It's a mischaracterization of how liberals view the 'war on terror'. It's supporting the Big Lie that Republicans and Democrats alike are fighting 'terrorism' in countries like Iraq. It equates not wanting to fight a senseless war in Iraq with not 'supporting' the war on terrorism.

On edit:

I noticed that you claim that Lieberman is a 'liberal' in your comments. Now I know that you've either misinterpreted the intent of this article or you're pulling our collective legs.

(no, I'm NOT overstating the case) DINO.

I no longer can stomach the NR since he became editor. Even David Brock paints him as a tool of "The Republican Noise Machine."

No thanks.

:puke:

You've got ONE quote, from ONE liberal, Michael Moore, underrepresenting the threat poised by Al Qaeda. I totally disagree with that ONE quote.

But EVERYTHING else he has said is entirely correct- and has only been represented by us "far-left" (ha ha!) liberals. While I wholeheartedly supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and push to find Osama bin Laden (which Bush has not done, and the "New Liberal" DLC Dems, as you call them, have NOT CALLED HIM ON), the invasion of Iraq was a DISGRACE to our country, and not only that, it was, and still is, DANGEROUS. Further, corporations, whom these "New Liberal" Dems represent, truly HAVE taken over our country for their financial interest- all branches of government, TV, radio, the internet, the military, healthcare, the environment....on and on. All so that they kind find new ways to fleece America's people. And these are who are represented by your "Joe Liebermans and Joe Bidens."

THAT is what needs to be stood up against.

The world is not safer or better off with Saddam out of power.
As disgusting as his tactics were for keeping control in Iraq, he did not have the crap we are trying to deal with there.

There were no WMD and no AQ terrorists in Iraq until we invaded. We have helped OBL recruit millions more AQ warriors due to the Iraq war.
Liberals are not anti-military - I am a liberal who could have been convinced about Iraq had the truth been told, and I am a veteran.

I cannot abide the DLC and I thought this article was a bunch of crap.
PB was pro IW all along, so to me he's just making excuse noise.

I do agree Democrats need to formulate a better message when it comes to National Security and Foreign Affairs. But "taking the fight" to Iraq was not part of our battle with Al Quaeda.

of Paul Berman, I think.

Berman, an editor of Dissent mag, makes a much better case.

then this cannot be a rip off. It is the way I feel!

book.

People who record the evil conversations of our top notch Republican leaders and are capable of giving it air time a la Wayne's World.

eom

policy in the Mideast. Putting troops in there and supporting dictators that opress the people.

I think fundamentalist Islam is worst then fundamentalist Christianity. I think that 90% of the people who sympathize with it if they REALLY had to live under it would want a change, look at Afghanistan they were glad to be rid of the Tailabon. The Iranians are starting to grow tired of it.

If we just pulled out of the region completely we could still buy oil from them.

I kind of trace the whole rise of the thing to Iran when we put the Shah in there and then they took the hostages. Even the PLO back then was more political and less Islamic radicals. I know a guy from Lebanon who moved here in the 70's and he said that now that the anti Israeli groups are so Islamic that almost all the Christians he knew have moved out. Arab Christains, cause they are tormented by the Islamic people.

Republican word: We want to stop the terrorists.

Republican actions: Our CIA created and trained these people to fight the Russians, they "turned on us," and everytime they do something to hurt us, we provoke them further, and attack the people that would deny them shelter and support. We manufacture and empower these people intentionally.

Republican word: We will smoke them out of their caves.

Republican actions: We let him get away, and haven't devoted much time or energy to finding them.

People really need to stop listening to these people. Their words are merely a smokescreen to keep people from discerning their true intentions. Their actions tell the tale, again and again.

They need to make Muslim fundamentalism something worth fighting. Something to keep us afraid of. Something worth dying to fight against.

Muslim fundamentalism would be nothing if not for our efforts.

We created them to fight the Soviet Union. The problem with that is that Jimmy Carter got the first appropriation for the muhajadeen in July of 79 six months BEFORE the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. We have fomented Islamic fundamentalists as a counter to Pan arabism as long ago as Nasser and Mossedegh. Can everyone say BLOWBACK?

I'm going to co-opt that for use with my wingnut co-worker.

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

And we don't invade countries that haven't attacked us. That's our position.

You're giving these DLC whores ammo. Stop it.

Then it was the "Communist" bogeyman. Now it's the "terrorist" bogeyman.

They painted "Miltant Communism" as a Godzilla like monster out to devour all of our goodies with dominoes falling everywhere.

Now it's "Miltant Islam" frothing at the mouth to do us all in.

Gotta keep the "defense" industry humming and the bottom line in the black.

I'm trying not to be bossy, here, but you're embarassing me.

It's RIDICULOUS to act like we shouldn't be killing Al Qaeda. At the same time, it's RIDICULOUS to be invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Do you see how this "Forever Free" (HA HA!!) guy is using your rather untenable terrorist-sympathizing argument to undermine our SOLID, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT anti-Iraq War argument, by mixing the two together?

Why are you giving him the ammunition to do that????

Of course we should be fighting al Queda. Are we doing that? Or are we creating a new boogeyman to take the place of Communism? Remember the days when all arguements were ended when the right said the C word like it was a trump card? AHHH, I said communism, its over. Well you can bet the right, and powerful republicans do and want desperatly to recreate the situation

I don't sympathize with those that use violence to achieve their ends. Whether it be bogeyman terrorists or Americans in uniforms.

The "war on terrorism" is as full of holes as the Tonkin Gulf Incident.

They hit us, and they hit us HARD. They're not fucking around, ok? And we need to KILL them.

Al Qaeda is the symptom of a failed middle east policy. Or, even more, a failed foreign policy that puts profits at the head of "vital interests" at the cost of people.

Your simplistic idea that we should go and "kill" them is puerile and adolescent. The Israelis have been killing the Palestinian "terrorists" for decades. The result? Just turn on the nightly news. The Russians have killed thousands of Chechen "terrorists". The Columbians have killed thousands of FARC "terrorists". The list can go on and on.

The problem is that we aren't addressing the problems that has given rise to the terrorists. We continue to treat the symptoms and add to the problems of poverty, hopelessness, ignorance, and oppression by supporting the thoroughly corrupt regimes of our "friends" in the ME and around the world.

If we were able to kill all of Al Queda, do you not think that they would be replaced instantly?

It's a phony "war" and Al Queda is a convenient bogeyman.

but the causes don't take away from the fact that we have to defend our country when we're attacked.

And making this argument that you're making, AGAIN, just gives these DLC whore idiots more ammunition to DEFEND the Iraq War.

The "it's all our fault so we shouldn't kill them" argument will NOT fly. You're HURTING us with it. Yes, the root cause needs to be addressed, but those who attack us have to be taken out.

"Taken out"? "Eliminate"? "Waste"? How about "exterminate"? "hit?" "Liquidate"? "Hang that coonskin on the wall?"

I heard those same words and phrases in our glorious wars against the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas, the Israelis still use them against the Palestinians, they were used against the ANC.

The problem is that it doesn't work.

How do you propose to "take them out"? It's a simple question. Sort of like, "How do you get rid of gangbangers in the cities?" They're as unlovely a bunch as the Al Queda terrorists. Hunt them down and kill them? Or, how about greedy corporations that are responsible, not for thousands of deaths, but hundreds of thousands. Hunt them down and "take them out"? Should we "waste" the heads of pharmaceutical companies who refuse to sell necessary drugs to 3rd world countries because they won't make enough profit?

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

Think about it.

Yes, I believe I can call you a terrorist sympathizer, now.

They killed three thousand Americans, and you're giving me Gandhi quotes.

The answer to your questions as to how it's done- well, it's done with good intelligence and cooperation from allies. You find out where they are, and you kill them.

For the record, "taken out" is, in my book, a much nicer way of talking about killing people. As opposed to "blowing the motherfuckers' heads off."

And, where, pray tell, have I indicated any such sympathies for anyone who uses violence to achieve political ends?

What's the matter, Gandhi "too liberal" for you?

the people that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11...something about it being our fault??

I didn't say that we shouldn't go after them (whatever that means), I've been saying that the approach that "we should go kill them" won't work.

If you think that hunging down and "killing" a bunch of Al Aqueda is going to stop terrorism against the USA, you're deluded. Just as hunting down and killing "terrorists" hasn't worked in Israel/Palestine.
It's a fool's solution to a problem that is much deeper than the murderous work of a few fanatics. And, the policy that we're pursuing in the alleged "war on terror" is exacerbating the problem rather than dealing with it in a way that has some possibility of working.

To deny that we have played a role in bringing about terrorism is to ignore what is obvious. Our continued meddling in the Middle East. Our support of despotic governments. Our blind backing of Israel. etc, have made us targets.

The "War on Terrorism" makes about as much sense as the "War on Drugs" and is just about as effective. But, it sounds really tough.

"Al Qaeda is the symptom of a failed middle east policy."

And then went on to explain why we shouldn't attack them.

I never said that we shouldn't attack them.

They are a result of a failed middle east policy. As for attacking them, they should be attacked. What I said is that merely "killing" them will not stop terrorism and will only exacerbate the problem.

They're much better at figuring out who is behind attacks on their people than we are.

I'm not going to get into a lengthy, involved argument on the subject, but I do believe the Israelis have the right to defend themselves. I also think they have a right to build that wall (which, for the record, is working) so long as it hews to the 1967 Green line and isn't a pretext for a broad-based land grab.

Most Israelis have been and still are genuinely interested in peace. This, after a century of being attacked. The current situation didn't emerge out of a vacuum. Prior to the '67 war, most of the planet was writing Israel's post-mortem. That said, however, the region (with the help of Bill Clinton) came closer to peace in 2000 than it had in a very long time... Unfortunately, Yasser Arafat brought the Palestinains to the edge of a solution and then spit in Ehud Barak's face. Arafat could have been remembered as a man who helped bring peace. Unfortunately, now, he will not be.

The only country in the region THIS administration gives a flying f*ck about is Saudi Arabia. They're only interested in Israel in as much as they are following the script from the "Left Behind" books.. ie. the Jews need to be there for Jesus to come back.

with them, whether they have ties to the Saudi Royal family, or Riggs Bank... or whatever...

...right?

And what certainly hasn't been done is use "Al Qaeda", boogeyman or not, as an excuse to go after long-standing neo-con dreams, including establishing a client state in Iraq, which also happens to hold the 2nd largest proven oil reserves on the planet, complete with.. what is it, seven? fourteen, now? Military bases...

...right?

See, it seems to me that the only people we haven't been going after in the "war on terror" are the actual fucking terrorists. ....Any ideas why that might be?

Case in point? try googling "Nabil Al Marabh".


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/30/terror/main626717.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/03/terror/main620825.shtml

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/nabilalmarabh.html

because it's impossible to ignore that Al Qaeda has been used as a convenient boogeyman to justify neo-con adventures abroad, and raiding the treasury and civil liberties at home.

Are there really "islamofascists" out there who want to kill us? Undoubtedly. But they've been getting brainwashed overwhelmingly in madrassas funded by the Saudi Royal family.

The problem is, the "war on terror" has been so wrapped up in jingoistic hyperbole, that the "enemy" is never clearly defined.. It's always "They hate us for our freedom, so shut up while we go kill the bad guys.. now, you'll just have to trust us that they're the bad guys." Who are we fighting in this "war on terror"? Al Qaeda? Okay, let's follow the money back to the Saudi Royals, then. Let's talk about how most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi..
We're fighting against "totalitarianism"? ...That's a laugh. We don't have any problem with "totalitarianism", so long as it's good for our interests, or good for business, which often seem to be the same thing.

Again, if we really want to talk about what's motivating the folks who "hate freedom" and "want to kill us", it's pretty f*cking obvious; it's belief in a giant, rule-crazy invisible man in the sky, one who has a pathological obsession with people's sex lives, hates naked women and gays, and issues very specific instructions to his most devoted followers about how they have to convert or kill everyone who doesn't believe as they do.
I think "Religious Fundamentalism" is as much an honest description of the problem as "islamofascism", but no one in charge of the "War on Terror" is going to admit that, because Religious Fundamentalists also happen to make up a solid chunk of this administration's base.

This idea that "we have to unite to fight this war"... Well, see, "terror", like "drugs", is a social phenomenon, as opposed to a nation, like Germany and Japan in WWII. It would be helpful if, at the very least, as we are being exhorted as patriotic americans and democrats to support this "war on terror" (and, for the record, I supported going into Afghanistan-- although, silly me, I really thought the point was to get Osama) yeah, it would be helpful if we would at least also be presented with a cogent, coherent explanation of who the enemy is (we haven't) and how we plan to defeat them (we haven't).. And if we wanted to get really crazy about the whole thing, maybe we would engage ourselves in some rational discussion about what "the terrorists" have as their real aims.. I mean, aside from "killing us for our freedom". (Oh, we can't do that, because any serious discussion about what these people want means we're "accomodating", "justifying", or "negotiating with" them)

Instead, we're supposed to believe that there is this nebulous, totally undefined enemy out there, that could strike us at any time, has no organizational aims or beliefs except "they hate us for our freedom", they just want to kill Americans, and whatever country we need to invade, or civil liberty we need to surrender, or pipeline we need to build, we should just shut up, because damn it we're fighting "Islamofascism"...

See, if Al Qaeda really isn't a bullshit boogeyman, they sure have been sold to the American people as one.

While it is true that a lot of the roots of Muslim fundamentalism stem from prior American policy decisions and actions abroad, you are missing the point. The fact is Al-Qaeda exists and it is intent to inflict horrendous casualties on America and its citizens no matter what the cost.

By arguing that it is the shadowy "military-industrial complex" and the defense contractors who are responsible for terrorism is dangerously naive. The real threat remains the terrorists that seek to kill as many of us as possible. The danger is not hyped up by these groups, the threat is real. The biggest enemy to liberalism and our progressive ideals is the very type of religious totalitarianism represented by Al-Qaeda and terrorists like them.

In order to protect our cherished freedoms and liberties, we need to confront them with firmness and resolve. Taking a tough stance against terror is not "Republican". To characterize it as such is ignorant, ridiculous, and dangerously naive. Liberal doesn't mean pacifist or dove.

I find it extremely telling that many liberals and progressives have more hatred and anger towards George W. Bush than Osama Bin Laden. Although Bush has proven himself to be an incompetent, inept, and recklessly ideological "leader", the greater threat to America is Bin Laden and the terrorists like him, not some moron from Crawford, Texas.

Do NOT distort what we are saying. It will not help your cause.

The serious liberals take nothing away from the threat of terrorism. PERIOD.

But the Iraq War has nothing to DO with 9/11 or Al Qaeda, so why are you trying to mix them together?

Bushs actions make the very problem you address worse? Terrorism isnt a country with monolithic goals or central control fighting it in a war context will never work. We cannot bomb our way out of this problem.What is nessasary is international cooperation. What we need are treaties to allow special forces units to find and nuetralize them wherever they are. What is needed is a policy of defanging their issues so that the average people that protect them will no longer see US as an even more evil target. If we spent one tenth as much money on REAL international aid to build schools and hospitals. Not for our safety but because we CAN and ameliorating misery is something a country as rich as ours OUGHT to do, then those average, Middle eastern people without whose support terrorist could not survive would dry that support up. We could attack the ones that DID continue their vile terrorist actions without alienating entire countries. You act like its either Bushs way, or Ghandis, thats a false dichotomy. I agree with many of the other posters you are painting US as the problem. stop it

When I see the sorry excuse for a human, I cringe at the face of a cold-blooded mass murderer.

I suggest you read the archives from 9/11; there is plenty of anger for bin Laden.

What we are pissed about is the lack of a real, dedicated effort to wipe al-Qaeda off the face of the earth.

That we CAN do something about by keeping the pressure on.

And Bush is breeding more bin Ladens like flies in shit, my friend. We can't stop one, so let's breed thousands. :eyes:

9/11 was preventable, period. The only way that terrorists can be a real threat is if they get ahold of a nuke, which would be less likely without the nuclear proliferation that * is so hamhandedly promoting. He is doing this by pushing for the development of battlefield nukes (taxpayer-sponsored gift to terrorists of the future), and by underfunding the Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction Initiative, which aims to help Russia control their nukes, and get rid of their bio and chem weapon.

"Shadowy military-industrial complex", right?

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

I find it extremely telling that many liberals and progressives have more hatred and anger towards George W. Bush than Osama Bin Laden. Although Bush has proven himself to be an incompetent, inept, and recklessly ideological "leader", the greater threat to America is Bin Laden and the terrorists like him, not some moron from Crawford, Texas.

And I find it quite telling that those who most eagerly seek to impose American military might on the world are those who most readily ignore the greatest threats to our ideals and freedoms that come from INSIDE our system itself.

Our founding fathers realized this. That is why they warned against "foreign entanglements". They didn't say this in a spirit of completely disengaging from the world. Rather, they recognized that without a concerted effort to cultivate democracy at home -- an effort that required a great deal of attention -- the words written by the founding fathers would become just that, mere words.

Last time I checked, al Qaeda did not have armies poised on our borders, ready to invade and occupy the United States. Last time I checked, they were not in a position to virtually invalidate the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. Last time I checked, they were not in a position to re-write our legal code by Executive Order.

Al Qaeda is not in a position to do ANY of these things. But the Bush administration is -- and has done these things, all under the guise of protecting the fearful public from the bogeyman of Islamic fundamentalism. And by saying "bogeyman", I'm not saying that a danger DOESN'T exist -- I'm simply saying it's hyped beyond recognition to provide cover for politicians to pursue nefarious ends.

I'd like to close with the final paragraph from a very important book I read a few months back, After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd.

In the twentieth century no country succeeded in increasing its power through military buildups or war. France, Germany, Japan, and Russia all suffered heavy losses in that game. Americans came out of the twentieth century winners because for a long time they knew how to refuse getting too involved in military conflicts in the Old World. Let us follow the example of that early successful America. Let us dare to become strong by refusing militarism and concentrating instead on the economic and social problems within our societies. Let the present America expend what remains of its energy, if that's what it wants to do, on "war on terrorism" -- a substitute battle for the perpetuation of a hegemony that it has already lost. If it stubbornly decides to continue showing off its supreme power, it will only end up exposing to the world its powerlessness.

Given the fact that Todd predicted the coming demise of the USSR back in the 1970's, and Beinart supported the annexation of Iraq (and is now trying to backtrack and cover up on that), I'll stick with Todd as a more informative voice.

I posted an article above, that goes into the problem outside just the typical Islamic extremist stuff. If you didn't read it, you might want to. I don't agree with his solution completely either, I think we have to do more than isolate. But I completely agree with the writer on why Bush's agression won't work.

.

Check it out.

It's all over the place so a snippet from it doesn't do it justice. Just go read the whole thing.

present world's a bit more complicated than truman's or kennedy's was.

i'm glad neiwert mentioned the flaw of symmterical thinking on 21st century defense matters, especially when just such methods of cold warriors like truman and kennedy are used to illustrate the ideal of the TNR crowd.

"Good question. And the answer is contained within it, to wit: Liberals have not supported the current war on terror precisely because it does not confront the real nature of the terrorist threat.

Liberals, I believe, would enthusiastically support a "war on terror" that recognized its broad nature, its root sources in radical fundamentalism, and its asymmetrical shape, and responded appropriately. Unfortunately, the DLC-style leadership we've been getting from atop the Democratic party, cheered on by folks like Beinart, has been too timid to articulate that kind of vision.

In the meantime, it should not surprise anyone that liberals are unenthusiastic about the Bush administration's substitute: warmed-over Cold War strategies combined with a megalomaniacal vision of American global hegemony. Moreover, its "war on terror," as I've argued frequently, is manifestly a political public-relations campaign that does not take any serious steps at actually confronting terrorism. We know this isn't a real war on terror because we still haven't caught either Osama bin Laden or the anthrax killer -- and don't show any signs of doing so soon. We know this administration isn't serious about terrorism precisely because we are now spending the bulk of our national energy fighting a war in Iraq that made the likelihood of future terrorist attacks exponentially greater."

Nothing could be further from the truth (although I suppose there are a few on this board who go around saying things like that, unfortunately).

Liberals are against terrorism, and defend our country- when it's actually attacked. Liberals want to root out Al Qaeda, but without invading countries that don't have Al Qaeda organizations. Doing those kinds of things only rallies more people to Al Qaeda's side, distracts us and wastes our resources getting caught up in needless wars.

It's crazy, but that's just the way us liberals think. You know, like, when you're defending yourself from terrorists, you actually attack the terrorists, not Madagascar or Greenland or something.

Again, many that have posted (but not BullGooseLoony) are STILL missing the point. By advocating a tough stance against terror, we are NOT supporting the wholesale invasion of every and any Islamic nation (i.e. I disapprove of the war against Iraq) We are also not supporting the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, women and children included. Taking an aggressive stand against the terrorists that murdered 3,000 of our citizens is NOT a "Republican", "Democratic", "liberal", or "conservative" issue. Its a NATIONAL issue that concerns all of us Americans and it must be addressed firmly and decisively.

For those that claim taking aggressive action against these murderers (let's call them what they really are) as "adolescent" is completely ridiculous and dangerously naive. What would you have us do then? Lay back, blame ourselves for being attacked, and wait for another terrorist to murder more innocent people? That's completely ridiculous.

It is this exact perception on the part of many of the electorate that has doomed the Democratic Party both in the 2002 midterm elections and recently in 2004. Many perceive, however erroneously, that the Democrats cannot adequately protect the American people from another terrorist attack. The Republicans have falsely spread this claim. People who post on this thread that state that Al-Qaeda is no threat but just a government invented "boogeyman" are just reinforcing the American people's false perception of Democrats.

By doing so, you're just playing into Karl Rove's hands and dooming the Democratic Party to lose even more national and local elections. With friends like these, who needs the Republicans?

editor--he's as liberal as I am NeoCon.

Beinart made some decent points about Liberals needing to be more credible on security issues. Where he lost me is where he seems to infer that being against any war--even an unnecessary, immoral and dangerously provacative war such as that in Iraq is bad politics and that people who do not march in lock step should be drummed out of the party.

Sorry, but that is clearly wrong.

and their pro-corporate policies.

All of the Dems that voted for the Iraq resolution were either duped or they had their heads up their ass. After Kerry said that he would still vote for it after knowing that there were no WMDs it was over for him in my view. All the Dems that stuck to that betrayed the progressives in the party and took the core Dems for granted due to ABB.

It's bullshit to say that liberals &/or leftists are anti-war. Most are anti-foolish wars that lead to disaster. The U.S. created the anti-American blast around the world by supporting any right wing dick that said he/she was anti-commie. The USSSR folded due to their foolish defense spending which the U.S goaded them into. The ME countries for the most part oppress their masses and the U.S aides that. The people there know it. The Iraq invasion threw gasoline onto their fire.

The mantra that the Dems need to move more right is a fool's song.

You mean conservatives, Yes I agree

This really isn't a partisan issue; there are people on both sides of the aisle saying we are wasting lives, money, and goodwill fighting the wrong damn enemy. And on both sides, I believe the national parties are stifling dissent.

Vary, vary bad for the nation.

What Beinart really wants is some true Conservatives with the spine to go after W.rong.

I'm about as far left as it gets, and I'd like to see that too!

...and very little of it is based on reality. If you own the media, you 'own' the truth.

That's what Zell Miller's anti-Democratic' rant was all about. He equated Democrats not voting for every plane, tank, ship and weapon system offered by defense contractors as 'weak on national security'.

Another great example is 'star wars'. (aka maybe missile defense) The GOP and the mainstream media (along with their defense contractor subsidaries) labels ANYONE who doesn't get behind starwars as 'weak' on national defense. Yet they still can't get this boondoggle to work even though they're now DEPLOYING it in the field. Reality would suggest that a polician voting AGAINST such waste and fraud would be percieved as being stronger on defense for not letting fraud corrupt the procurement system.

All of this is about one thing: money. It's not about terrorism. It's about political opportunism and taking advantage of Americans and their fear.

Using the latest excuse to come down the pike since the Red Menace.

Any article that shits on Michael Moore while referring to neocon sellouts such as Biden and LIEberman as "liberals" isn't worth the paper I assume it was printed on.

The Carlyle Group. PNAC, and the DLC are three branches of the same treasonous body. You cannot defeat one by promoting the other.

Are right here in America. You can see them as they blather in news conferences and conduct the news presentations each evening. Or they may be preaching from the pulpit.

You can find them in the sec of states offices around the country too.

Many are in the coffee rooms at companies, repeating messages of 'truth' from people like Rush. These people are just idiots though, mostly.

Yep, American does have a lot of enemies.

..doesn't mean you don't know it's there.

Terrorism is like burrs.

Here and there.

STOP FUCKING SWATTING HORNET'S NESTS WITH BASEBALL BATS!

STAY HOME AND MIND OUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS*!

*when we can.

...The War Profiteers insist that all 'good' Americans approve of EVERY war they start for ANY reason. It doesn't matter to them that Bush* had an itch to scratch in Iraq and that this ILLEGAL war has unnecessarily cost the lifes of thousands. The 'rule of law' applies ONLY to those they attack.

keep our military out of the middle east unless unfairly provoked. But if we are hit first, we must hit back, and hit back hard (ie Pearl Harbor).

My problem with the "hit back, and hit back HARD" argument is that in the current context, we can't always be too certain WHO we're going after -- or, more importantly, who is caught in the crossfire (or blast radius).

For instance, the campaign in Afghanistan was obstensibly about hitting the terrorists back. However, how does that play out for the family who loses 20 people when their wedding party is bombed? How does that play out for the chlid who is orphaned, the woman who is widowed and whose child is killed?

Some here cite such instances as the "costs of war", and deem such losses as acceptable. I cannot engage in such rationalization, because their lives are in no way any less valuable than mine.

It's about focus.

And the energy independence is KEY.

I'm highly suspect of everyone these days. I know right from wrong without a full think tank of gas. I know Lying as a pretext to war is never good.

And sowing confusion and irrationality among the ranks intentionally would be wrong.

I think I'll just proceed staight ahead with my plans to take my party and my country back, and ignore this claptrap. I suggest everyone do the same.

Oh, and join us if you wish, we're getting there with or without you.

Again, many that have posted (but not BullGooseLoony) are STILL missing the point. By advocating a tough stance against terror, we are NOT supporting the wholesale invasion of every and any Islamic nation (i.e. I disapprove of the war against Iraq) We are also not supporting the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, women and children included. Taking an aggressive stand against the terrorists that murdered 3,000 of our citizens is NOT a "Republican", "Democratic", "liberal", or "conservative" issue. Its a NATIONAL issue that concerns all of us Americans and it must be addressed firmly and decisively.

For those that claim taking aggressive action against these murderers (let's call them what they really are) as "adolescent" is completely ridiculous and dangerously naive. What would you have us do then? Lay back, blame ourselves for being attacked, and wait for another terrorist to murder more innocent people? That's completely ridiculous.

It is this exact perception on the part of many of the electorate that has doomed the Democratic Party both in the 2002 midterm elections and recently in 2004. Many perceive, however erroneously, that the Democrats cannot adequately protect the American people from another terrorist attack. The Republicans have falsely spread this claim. People who post on this thread that state that Al-Qaeda is no threat but just a government invented "boogeyman" are just reinforcing the American people's false perception of Democrats.

By doing so, you're just playing into Karl Rove's hands and dooming the Democratic Party to lose even more national and local elections. With friends like these, who needs the Republicans?

The only question is whether or not they are still loyal employees, and a case for that could be made either way.

Circumstances are hardly unique either. It's also a fact that Hamas was created by Mossad as a tool of undermining the PLO. While it might have appeared they went far beyond that original purpose, it's amazing how relatively quiet they have been since Arafat died, isn't it?

Iraq is the focus of the 'tough stance' on terrorism and is indeed the first step in the 'wholesale invasion of other Islamic nations'. There seems to be a disconnect in your thinking when you write that you 'disapprove of the war against Iraq'.

Whether 'we' support it or not...the 'indiscriminate bombing of civilians' is exactly what's going on. What do you think happens when the Bushies order the bombing of CIVILIAN neighborhoods? Do you think all the civilians magically disappear before the bombs drop?

The 'aggressive stance' against terrorism is happening in Iraq. You seem to be suffering the same denial as many on the right when they talk about an aggressive stance on terrorists and then simply ignore that the Bushies are fighting THEIR war on terrorism in Iraq.

No one in Iraq 'murdered' the 3000 people (not necessarily citizens) on 911. Yet you keep trying to make the connection...forgetting that the only 'war' that's being fought against terrorism is in Iraq.

Perhaps you could tell us what aggressive action is being taken anywhere except IN Iraq? The murderers were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden is still on the run and Bush* says he's not concerned about him...if he ever was.

Isn't it YOU that's 'playing into Rove's hands' by continuing to pretend that the 'war on terror' is being fought in Iraq?

I NEVER said the war in Iraq was the same as the war on Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. You just made the assumption. In fact, in my earlier post, i said I OPPOSED the war in Iraq. "Why?" you might ask. Probably for the same reasons you oppose it. Bush misled us into war, no weapons of mass destruction, no Al-Qaeda links, no plan to win the peace. In addition, I believe that the war in Iraq is an unnecessary DISTRACTION from the real war against Al-Qaeda, the true threat to the United States.

So please, before you go putting words into people's mouths and make blind accusations, think first. It appears that quite a few that have posted here need to do that.

...and that the only 'war on terrorism' is being fought in IRAQ? You're trying to have it both ways. You're asking us to support a war on terror that has nothing to do with an actual war on terrorism.

Yet you call others naive.

Bush's* war on terror has two fronts: In Iraq and in the US. The war on terror in the US seems to consist of ONLY taking away our rights while refusing to fund real 'homeland' security. What is that you say? There IS no money to actually defend the United States because the necessary money is being used to nation build in Iraq.

Even YOU know there is no Al-Qaeda links to Iraq pre-invasion. So tell us...what are we doing there fighting the 'war on terror'? It's not just a distraction...it's the centerpiece of Bush's* war on terrorism. And THIS is what you want us to support?

You're trying to separate the 'war on terrorism' with Iraq. Can't be done unless and until we pull out of that country that had nothing to do with terrorism on our soil.

One more thing: like the author of this idiotic article...YOU are trying to associate the opinion of Moore with ALL Liberals because many of us are against the charade called the war on terror that's anything but.

"stop swatting hornet's nests with baseball bats" would be a good start.