Both/And

Doyle McManus, card-carrying member of your liberal media. doing some "news analysis" for The Los Angeles Times. points out that if you vote for Democrats, terrorists will kill your children:

Although fireworks erupted last week among the leading Democratic candidates, those differences are narrow compared with the chasm between the two parties' worldviews, one focused on battling the threat of radical Islam, the other on ending the war.

The point, of course, is that ending the war in Iraq isn't something contrary to improving the country's ability to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism, nor is it something other than improving the country's ability to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism, rather, it's a constitutive part of improving the country's ability to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism. If someone had given me a bunch of money to start a Democratic-oriented national security think tank and an LA Times writer had called me up to discuss this issue, that's the point I would have made. Instead, the powers that be decided that Kurt Campbell should start a think tank instead:

Foreign policy is playing a role in this campaign unlike any election since the Cold War," said Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton administration official who heads a new centrist think tank in Washington, the Center for New American Security. "The debate so far has made the two parties' positions appear polarized, more than they need to be…. The election may well be decided on foreign policy and national security, but it's all about just two issues: Iraq and the war on terror."

Very Serious!

Comments

At least he admits that "Iraq" and "the war on terror" are two issues, not one.

Posted by DonBoy | July 29, 2007 12:58 PM

This is a bit of a side issue, but in decades of reading newspapers, I can't remember reading a single 'news analysis' piece that was any good. Almost always, they're just dumping grounds for every 'commentary, not opinion' banality ever invented.

Does a report Raise More Questions Than It Answers? Has anyone checked in with Many yet? Have they Become Increasingly Concerned?

Posted by bh | July 29, 2007 1:36 PM

While the pols blather on, and the think tanks think on, the US war against Iraq continues. After the latest offensive against the Mehdi Army in Karbala, in which nine Iraqis were killed and 23 others were wounded, Iraqi citizens took to the streets to demonstrate solidarity against the US military occupation, while in Baghdad the US recruitment of resistance fighters goes on as before.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 1:53 PM

Re: Global War on Terrorism -

I don't see the US as waging war (or being threatened) by the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), which is, by its mode of operation, definitely terrorist. Therefore the Global War on Terrorism is neither Global, nor a war on all terrorism. It is a conceited misname just like the "World Series" in baseball.

If this a war against Al Qaeda and its allies, this a strange war where the opponent has gotten stronger over the last six years. In part because of our lack of focus. We've morphed this war from being against al Qaeda and the supporting cast of Taliban to including Baathists and other Sunni insurgents in Iraq, against Shia militias in Iraq (all of the latter set whom we unleashed in the first place), against Hamas and Hezbollah elsewhere.

As people come to realize this, the President tries to obfuscate by repeating endlessly "al Qaeda in Iraq".

Anyway, in this case, our host has hit a home run: that ending our involvement in Iraq is "a constitutive part of improving the country's ability to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism." should be repeated loudly and often.

Posted by Arun | July 29, 2007 2:16 PM

My younger brother (just kidding) did not say, at least in the quote provided, anything about terrorism or the "War on Terrorism." He said Republicans are "battling the threat of Radical Islam." Now that may be a stupid or even crazy idea, but is certainly broad enough to include Iraq and the Shia factions and internal politics of Iraq. It might also include about one third of the world, geographically, including radical Muslims in the US.

The Republican candidates should be asked to clarify. Are we at war with Sufism?

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 29, 2007 2:31 PM

Re: The election may well be decided on foreign policy and national security, but it's all about just two issues: Iraq and the war on terror

I very much doubt this. Has any election ever been decided on the basis of foreign policy? 1968 and 1980 are candidates, but there were major domestic issues in play both years too (massive disorder in the US in 1968; a bad economy and energy crisis in 1980). I'm sure foreign policy fiascos contributed to the Democratic losses in both years, but I'd bet that if everything else had been coming up roses in either year, there would have been a President Humphrey or a second term President Carter.

Posted by JonF | July 29, 2007 4:24 PM

JonF,

Good point. As bad as Iraq is, and it's bad, the chickens may be coming home to roost in our highly-speculative and -leveraged economy.

News report: US shares plunged today, with key indexes losing over 2 per cent, in one of the worst sell-offs this year, with investors gripped by housing market and "credit crunch" fears.

News report: Japan’s governing Liberal Democratic Party suffered a crushing defeat in elections on Sunday for the upper house of Parliament, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed that he would not step down. . . In a devastating rebuke to Mr. Abe, angry voters punished him for his mishandling of bread-and-butter issues and for a series of scandals

But we can still depend on our other major creditor, China, right?

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 6:00 PM

Re: But we can still depend on our other major creditor, China, right?

I don't think we have much to worry about with Japan. Scandal seems to be a regular feature of Japanese politcal life.

Posted by JonF | July 29, 2007 9:33 PM

"War on Radical Islam"? "Are we at war with Sufism?"

Good questions. Many radical Muslims are probably as dangerous or not dangerous as radical Christians Pat Roberton and Ted Haggard.

Posted by Arun | July 29, 2007 9:47 PM

"I don't see the US as waging war (or being threatened) by the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), which is, by its mode of operation, definitely terrorist. Therefore the Global War on Terrorism is neither Global, nor a war on all terrorism. It is a conceited misname just like the "World Series" in baseball."

Add in the fact that the LTTE uses suicide bombing more than any other terrorist group and it really shows how bullshit Bush's War on Terror really is. There is a definite war on AQ and the Taliban, which has included some individuals in the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (which we discovered by convincing AQ members that some CIA guys were their AQ contacts, no torture involved) and possibly others (some in Yemen?). Bush's GWOT is just bullshit. It's scattershot. It's akin to, say, hypothetically using the Cold War struggle against communism to declare war on Suharto after the Iranian Revolution. GWOT was a phrase created to be vague enough to make sure the war is long and can justify the unitary executive and the dominance of the Republicans. GWOT is an electoral marketing campaign, not an actual foreign policy.

Posted by Reality Man | July 29, 2007 11:20 PM