Two Complaints I Can't Figure Out
Critics of the Bush approach to the threat of terror seem to have settled on two main complaints:
1) We don't have Osama bin Laden's corpse. Therefore the war on terror is a failure.
2) Attacking Iraq will detract from the war on terror.
Even after having his head handed to him in elections, Tom Daschle continues to make complaint #1 (which confounds Peter Schramm as well). And complaint #2 is one that pops up in various spots.
Note I refer to these points as complaints, rather than arguments.
In the first example, it just puzzles me how people get from the assertion to the conclusion. Surely, one might reasonably criticize the Bush team's tactics, or even its broader strategy, in fighting terror. But to suggest, as Daschle does, that we have made NO progress is just a silly utterance from someone who apparently does not want to be taken seriously on foreign policy (and the voters indicated they don't, which apparently wasn't enough to get the Senator's attention). I just don't think it's true, and there's probably not room for reasonable discussion with people who think it is.
The second example often comes from the sorts of people who have long imagined criticized a vast military-industrial complex and defense bureaucracy. But suddenly this apparatus is inadequate to the task of rooting out terror globally -- even as a new Homeland Security Department is being created -- and conducting a regional military operation. It's reassuring to know that the military-industrial complex was never the threat it was made out to be, but I really would like to see more evidence that we don't have adequate resources to carry out these two missions. Granted, I'm a hawk, and I would like more resources devoted to the national security of the United States, but they have a LOT of resources. It seems to me those who complain we can't handle these two missions need to provide some evidence to the contrary.
Now, it's a very different argument, of course, to say that attacking Iraq is not integral to the war on terrror, and that we should concentrate on x,y,z instead. I disagree, of course -- and as a complete aside, I saw Con Coughlin (author of Saddam: King of Terror) on MSNBC (or maybe CNBC) being interviewed by Pat Buchanan earlier. He kept trying to get Coughlin to agree that war with Iraq might be a bad idea, and finally concluded by asking Coughlin point blank (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "In your research, did you find direct ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda." Without hesitation, he answered "Yes." Obviously, one can disagree with Coughlin and people like me who suspect he is right. But again, that's a somewhat different matter than simply dismissing American military and foreign policy capabilities. Those opposed to invading Iraq (if it comes to that) need a better argument than one of capabilities. In my opinion. :)
[Posted at 17:37 CST on 11/15/02] [Link]
