Terror

I think Democrats really ought to be worried about poll results indicating that "Republicans have nearly doubled their lead when voters are asked which party they trust most to protect the nation against terrorism." In particular, I think you've got to worry that some time in late October, Osama bin Laden is going to release a new tape or letter which is going to say something like "things are looking up, the Bush administration is discredited and the Democrats are poised to take control of the United States congress soon." It's clear that OBL and his collaborators have a reasonably sophisticated understanding of western domestic politics, and one of the most undercovered stories of the year has been Ron Suskind's revelation that the CIA concluded that bin Laden's fall 2004 missive was designed to help secure Bush's re-election.

The good news is that fully 61 percent of voters say the war in Iraq is "diverting resources that could be used in other ways to fight terrorism" whereas only only 26 percent regard it as "the most effective way to fight terrorism." I think it's clear that there should be an opening here to argue that what we need to do is stop diverting resources and start using them in a more focused, but still aggressive manner.

Comments

I think Democrats pretty clearly do worry about numbers like that, but there seems to be real disagreement about how to respond to voter perceptions. Part of it is, no doubt, that "voter perceptions" are probably really "the aggregate opinion of discreet blocks of voters whose opinions are driven by very different factors." We're trying to win everywhere, and perhaps that means that our arguments aren't as as pointed as one might expect, because we don't want to offend anyone.

In any case, I think bullying someone for the sake of bullying someone wouldn't hurt.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2006 10:41 AM

Rhetorically, at least, I don't see the harm in trying to "out-hawk" the Republicans with respect to Bin Laden.

Why not use inflammatory (albeit slightly disengenuous) language, such as saying that Bush...

"...decided to pursue a strategy of being soft on Al Qaeda"

"...decided to let Bin Laden get away from Tora Bora"

"...decided to ignore warnings about the 9/11 attacks"

My point is, what the Democrats have been saying, about diverting resources here and there, etc, is just not inflammatory enough. I remember opening the newspaper the other day, reading a quote which at first I thought was from a Democrat, saying something to the effect that the other party "sounds like they are siding with the terrorists instead of with America". I thought to myself, "wow, they are finally starting to use the right kind of language". But then, when I read the full article, it of course turned out to be a Republican talking about the Democrats.

Posted by Jim W | September 21, 2006 10:58 AM

The fact is: the Bush administration has been great for Osama, the best thing that could have happened to him. He is still alive and still free (freedom is on the march isn't it...). Not only that but Bush provided a whole new training ground in Irak and helped him recruit. These days it is harder to recruit for the US military than for Al Qaeda. Bush did not DECIDE to do any of those things, but he ended up doing them through terrible decisionmaking. This is the point I'd like to see people make.

Posted by zumbrunndbla | September 21, 2006 11:19 AM

Time and time again Bush has handed campaign commercials to the Dems, yet they refuse to take advantage of the gifts in their laps. Why not just flood the airwaves with any of the several instances of the Idiot Prince saying, "I don't think Bin Laden is important"?

Posted by sglover | September 21, 2006 11:29 AM

The fact is: the Bush administration has been great for Osama, the best thing that could have happened to him.

Maybe, as a first step, you guys could decide whether Osama and al Qaeda is just fine and dandy these days and more of a threat than ever, or if they've been destroyed/rendered ineffective such that we are no longer threatened by terrorism and we can start to wind down the war.

Posted by Al | September 21, 2006 11:31 AM

Oh, right Al. Because the condition of al-Qaeda has so much to do with whether we should continue the war in Iraq!

Taking out bin Laden ought to be a given, a common goal we all share. Even if you could prove he's been completely neutralized, he's still a mass murderer of Americans. The only reason Bush won't commit more strongly to getting the job done is that he doesn't think he can do it.

Posted by Steve | September 21, 2006 11:37 AM

BTW, my personal opinion is that the current focus on Iran as the election issue is misplaced. I think that if there is going to be military action pre-November, it will be an invasion of Pakistan (not the entire country - just the border region). You guys have been on Bush for not getting OBL for a while now. So, I would assume that you all would be four-square behind invading Pakistan, right? Just think about how that will play out politically...

Posted by Al | September 21, 2006 11:37 AM

Maybe, as a first step, you guys could decide whether Osama and al Qaeda is just fine and dandy these days and more of a threat than ever, or if they've been destroyed/rendered ineffective such that we are no longer threatened by terrorism and we can start to wind down the war.

Osama at large presents at least a couple of threats. He and his organization might be regrouping in order to make more attacks against US interests. But he also acts as an example to potential terrorist groups that you can attack the US without bearing the ultimate personal cost. I'd have thought a conservative would have understood the latter point immediately, as it motivates at least some of the movement's positions on US crime policy, including, IIRC, the imposition of the death penalty.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2006 11:48 AM

"Maybe, as a first step, you guys could decide whether Osama and al Qaeda is just fine and dandy these days and more of a threat than ever, or if they've been destroyed/rendered ineffective such that we are no longer threatened by terrorism and we can start to wind down the war."

Its been clear for a while now that the threat from al Qaeda has been way overstated. Fallows has written about this. In the long term, the threat is that technology makes it so much easier for small groups of people to inflict a lot of damage. This is one of the reasons why Bush's policies have been so bad, because a new generation of people are being radicalized, who will be motivated to harm us down the road.

The main point of the post, however, was asking what the political message should be.

Posted by Jim W | September 21, 2006 11:57 AM

Look, folks, when a majority or at least a substantial minority of Americans are pro-torture, and the President's poll ratings go up when he slams his fist on the podium and sticks his finger in Matt Lauer's chest and says we can't give away our torture secrets because the terrorists will "adjust," this country is just plain screwed. Dem strategy shmategy.

Posted by bobbo | September 21, 2006 12:27 PM

The main point of the post, however, was asking what the political message should be.

Well, let's see, Jim. You don't think OBL and Al Quaeda are important but think the Dems can win big by noisily pretending they are important and even more noisily lying about them - oh, so sorry - being "slightly disingenuous" about them. From what I can see, both notions put you pretty thoroughly in the middle of the Democratic activist mainstream these days. I'm guessing you'll pretty much get your way.

By the way, is someone going to answer Al's very pertinent question? If Iraq is a "diversion" from the "real" war on terror - i.e., against Al Quaeda and OBL - then do you or do you not favor actual military pursuit of same wherever they may actually be?

OBL & Co. pretty obviously isn't in Afghanistan anymore. Waziristan? Probably. Tajikistan? Could be. How many borders may we cross in pursuit? May we do these crossings alone? Must we have a multi-national imprimitur from NATO or the U.N.? If the answer to the first question is greater than zero and/or the answers to questions two and three are yes and no, respectively, what becomes of the long-standing indictment of the Bush administration for "unilateralism" and lack of respect for "national sovereignty" and "international law?" If the answer to question one is none and/or the answers to questions two and three are no and yes, respectively, just how do you suggest OBL be apprehended? More important, why should anyone with sense take your overall critique seriously?

Posted by Dick Eagleson | September 21, 2006 12:29 PM

The inertia and silence of Democratic politicians in the face of the boundless corruption and idiocy which is George W makes me sure that the bozos at the top of the Democratic foodchain are simply petty criminals who have been blackmailed into silence. They aren't even pretending to rip Bush as he could be and as he deserves to be. They're Potemkin politicians and scoundrels all.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 21, 2006 12:33 PM

OT--

Check this out:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8451.html#more-8451

Wouldn't that be weird if one of those agencies was like 100% ideological Republicans, but made itself look like a bunch of swank hippies in front of the media.

Posted by Swan | September 21, 2006 12:52 PM

We all know that there's a difference between what you stress in your political message and what the reality is, Dick. The quotes I proposed were only slightly disengenuous in the sense that Bush didn't decide to let Bin Laden escape, per se, he just decided to pursue Bin Laden half-heartedly, allowing him to get away.

Compared to the dishonesty from the other side, though, these quotes are models of truthfulness.

In answer to your question, the problem with Iraq isn't so much that its a diversion from the war on terror, but that it is just a complete disaster all by itself. As for bin Laden, apprehending him is of much less importance than maintaining the territorial integrity and political stability of Pakistan if those two goals are in conflict.

Posted by Jim W | September 21, 2006 12:54 PM

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass whether the Democrats or the Republicans are perceived as being more effective on terror.

I want to know what the good strategies are and I want someone to do them. Republican? Fine. Libertarian? Fine. Socialist? Fine. Vegetarian? Fine.

I mean, the Democratic Party is something other than a subterfuge to impose Gay Rights on the natiion. Right?

If so, then that means the Democrats stand up right now and oppose torture and illegal surveillance. They fillibust. They hold vigorous press conferences. They directly attack Bush.

And if this costs them the mid terms, so be it.

Posted by Thinker | September 21, 2006 12:59 PM

The Romans did not have to besiege the Zealots in their hilltop redoubt at Masada, they could have just set guards on nearby waterholes and springs and waited for everybody in the fortress to die from hunger and thirst.

Instead, the Emperor Vespasian (a former general) and his son Titus (who commanded the Roman armies sent to subdue Palestine) wanted to show everybody that rebels would be swiftly and unfailingly tracked down and killed, even across mountains and deserts. Similarly, we should have captured or killed Osama bin-Laden at Tora Bora in 2002 instead of relying on unreliable Afghan forces who let him slip away.

By letting bin-Laden escape from Tora Bora, Bush let him win, since as long as he didn't lose (i.e., be captured or killed), he wins. Yes, it's true that the original al-Qaeda networks have been disrupted or destroyed, but thanks to Osama's inspiring ability to evade the world's paramount military power for so long, al-Qaeda has changed from a clutch of ultra-compartmentalized terror cells to a mass movement which can provide a bottomless supply of people eager to kill and die for the greater glory of Allah. (Since 2001, the most popular given name bestowed on male newborns in the Arab world has been "Osama".)

Even if Osama were to be captured or killed now, it would't matter much; the mass movement is already under way. Osama can die happy whether we end up killing him or not. Trust Boy George to strike now that the iron is cold !

Posted by Cornelius Tacitus | September 21, 2006 1:20 PM

Reality Check

Posted by Aaron Adams | September 21, 2006 1:21 PM

Ron Suskind is a smart guy so his vignette is interesting. To put it in objective context, however, the CIA and State department were at bureaucratic war with the WH over invading Iraq. So, the CIA leaker to Suskind could have had ulterior motives, but it still could be true that the CIA came to the conclusion that OBL wanted Bush to win in 2004. (I don't remember the election being that close, though.)

What is OBL's ultimate goal? A Caliphate stretching over the Middle East and beyond, which seems farther from realization than in 2001.

Bush and the American military did kill al-Zarqawi, who was beginning to rival OBL, so in that sense they did OBL a favor.

I just don't think OBL is strategically that smart. In early 2001, the Islamic fundamentalism that the Pakistanis had inflicted on Afghanistan was metastisizing back into Pakistan and the fundis were on the verge of taking over the government and it's nuclear weaponary. After 9/11, theres much less of a chance of that happening.

Posted by Peter K. | September 21, 2006 2:08 PM

I think Kerry would have done just as good a job against OBL as Bush has - 0 attacks in 5 years - so the conservatives who said OBL wanted Kerry as President were stupid.

However if you wanted a new Caliphate you'd be smart to want an isolationist hyperpower, not one active in international affairs.

Posted by Peter K. | September 21, 2006 2:24 PM

However if you wanted a new Caliphate you'd be smart to want an isolationist hyperpower, not one active in international affairs. - Peter K.

I trust you are not implying that those of us who oppose Bush & friends' foreign policy are isolationists: it is a false, but alas commonly used and politically effective gambit to act as if foreign policy options are entirely dichotomous: you either need to sign onto the idea that the U.S. ought to be the world's policeman or you are an isolationist. It's as if the concepts of containment, of internationalism, etc., never existed, never won us the Cold War, etc.

Anyway, the idea that OBL would want an isolationist hyperpower is debatable. The chief obstical to the Caliphate is a lack of unity in the Muslim world. What could be more unifying than a common enemy? Some have even suggested that OBL attacked us hoping to get us so angry we'd do something like attack Iraq and make ourselves even more reviled in the Arab world. Some have even suggested that Bush's militarism has indeed been keeping us safe as it gives OBL the clash of civilizations he wants, so he has no need to attack us to keep us fighting.

Posted by DAS | September 21, 2006 4:58 PM

In particular, I think you've got to worry that some time in late October, Osama bin Laden is going to release a new tape or letter which is going to say something like "things are looking up, the Bush administration is discredited and the Democrats are poised to take control of the United States congress soon."

Ach, this is no problemo for a significant subset of "netroots." I've seen it happen before--they will pound out lots of posts "proving" that the Osama tape is a creation of the pro-Bush CIA and sit and wait for the rest of America to see this "truth," all the while excoriating mainstream dems for not doing the same but stoking the Bush fearmongering. A surefire political tactic, winner every time.

[/sarcasm]

Posted by artappraiser | September 21, 2006 5:33 PM

DAS,

Fair enough. Opponents of the war in Iraq aren't necessarily isolationists. Also those who agreed that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good idea don't necessarily think that the US should be the world's policeman.

A democratic Iraq friendly and grateful to the US would be a boon in the battle against Islamic extremism, i.e. OBL.

The chief obstacle to OBL's Caliphate is most certainly not a lack of unity in the Arab world. Maybe it's an obstacle, but one of the lesser ones. There's the Saudi government - an ally of the U.S. who kicked OBL out of Saudi Arabia - there's Egypt's dictatorship - recipient of $2 Billion worth of annual foreign aid from the US - there's a fiesty, nuclear weapon-possessing Israel, Syria's dictatorship, Lebanon's semi-democracy etc., etc. Plus I doubt even a significant minority of Muslims would agree with OBL's idea of a Caliphate, even if they don't care for the US or their own governments.

Yemen just had fairly free democratic elections, as did the Palestinians. OBL doesn't believe in elections or democracy, and considers them Western inventions, thereby suspect.

Again, if it's true as has been suggested that OBL wanted to provoke the US into overreacting, I think it was strategically stupid on his part. He lost the Taliban and Afghanistan. He lost Zarqawi and KSM and many of his lieutenants. In light of today's meeting with Bush and Musharraf, I suspect OBL himself will be entering paradise soon.

According to the 9/11 commission, his chief beef was that the US had troops stationed in the holy land (if you forgot, they were there to protect the Saudis from Saddam, so indirectly Saddam did cause 9/11). He did get his wish in that case, American troops were moved out of Saudi Arabia. As you know, they were redeployed to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by Peter K. | September 22, 2006 11:21 AM