Clinton on Terrorism

Guardian America launches today at last, spearheaded by a great Mike Tomasky interview of Hillary Clinton, in which he bores down and asks her some really good questions. This exchange is particularly noteworthy:

Do you think that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, or do you think they have specific geopolitical objectives?

Well, I believe that terrorism is a tool that has been utilized throughout history to achieve certain objectives. Some have been ideological, others territorial. There are personality-driven terroristic objectives. The bottom line is, you can't lump all terrorists together. And I think we've got to do a much better job of clarifying what are the motivations, the raisons d'être of terrorists. I mean, what the Tamil Tigers are fighting for in Sri Lanka, or the Basque separatists in Spain, or the insurgents in al-Anbar province may only be connected by tactics. They may not share all that much in terms of what is the philosophical or ideological underpinning. And I think one of our mistakes has been painting with such a broad brush, which has not been particularly helpful in understanding what it is we were up against when it comes to those who pursue terrorism for whichever ends they're seeking.

It sounds like you're saying it's not particularly useful when Bush and others say terrorists hate us for our freedoms?

Well, some do. But is that a diagnosis? I don't think it's proven to be an effective one.

She seems to have the right answer here, at the end of the day, but she's very cautious about saying it. I wonder about this. It would be fantastic, of course, to have a president in the White House with a less addled substantive understanding of these issues. At the same time, I think it's necessary at some point to seize the whole conceptual framework that's been dominating debate in this country since 9/11 by the horns and throw it to the ground. Obama and Edwards have both shown far more inclination to do this than has Clinton (in part, obviously, because the exigencies of the campaign have forced them to) which is an important consideration in their favor.

Comments

Climate change and energy policy are the defining challenges of this century, not "Islamofascism". But how do you manage to say this? How do you put Islamofascism in perspective or ever have a rational national security policy with the Republican jingos around?

Posted by bob h | October 23, 2007 12:47 PM

She seems to have the right answer here, at the end of the day, but she's very cautious about saying it.

Could it be she's just preparing for the general election? I agree—and perhaps she does as well—that "it's necessary at some point to seize the whole conceptual framework that's been dominating debate in this country since 9/11 by the horns and throw it to the ground", but she may want to not do that yet, as in the general election she may try to sway people who have those beliefs.

I guess my main point is that there's a lot of criticism of her—or maybe it's frustration—that she hasn't come out more progressive as some of her rivals, but it seems to me she has her eye on the general election. She's already demonized by republicans as being too liberal, so it's obvious she has to be careful about what she says in the primary, which will be used against her in the general election.

Posted by mitch | October 23, 2007 12:57 PM

"I wonder about this."

What's to wonder about? She's obviously being baited by the Guardian reporter into making the same sort of blanket statement he faults Bush for making (albeit, an opposite one), and she avoids the trap.

Posted by Juan | October 23, 2007 12:59 PM

Well, I don't think Tomasky's question asked her to grab that particular bull by the horns, and I don't think she was in the least bit evasive. And God, it's so wonderful to hear a politician who can actually think, who knows stuff, and who can compare approaches to Basque terrorists and other terrorists. I worry she's gun-shy from run-ins with the right-wing media militia and their enablers, but she's no dope.

Posted by David in NY | October 23, 2007 1:00 PM

I agree with David in NY. Its great that she can speak so well. I'm satisfied enough with what she's saying, given that she has to think about the general election.

Posted by Jim W | October 23, 2007 1:10 PM

Its pretty pathetic that we're jumping for joy b/c a politician is not completely unqualified for the job their running for.

Posted by mpowell | October 23, 2007 1:13 PM

The bottom line is, you can't lump all terrorists together. And I think we've got to do a much better job of clarifying what are the motivations, the raisons d'être of terrorists.

This is becoming the classic HRC dodge when the going gets sticky. She loves answers of the form, "We need to think a lot more about X" as opposed to "I have thought a lot about X and here is my best attempt at an answer."

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 23, 2007 1:17 PM

Re ""it's necessary at some point to seize the whole conceptual framework that's been dominating debate in this country since 9/11 by the horns and throw it to the ground" "
-----------
True -- because that conceptual framework has badly hurt us in the war on Al Qaeda.

Bush's DELIBERATE LIE -- that the Sept 11 attack occurred "because they hate our freedom " -- was done to protect Big Oil, Big Defense, and the Israel Lobby. To conceal from the American People that fact that the attack was in reaction to the death , destruction and deep poverty inflicted on the Islamic World by the US government in service of those lobbies.

And because Bush's Lie was allowed to go unchallenged, the "war on terror" has been manipulated into an unnecessary "war on 1 Billion Muslims".

This is NOT in America's interest. It is done to benefit the selfish agendas of the few while dumping the huge costs --in dead sons and $Trillions of debt -- onto the average American.

The Islamic World does not support Al Qaeda. Look at Iraq. And with the support of the Islamic World, we could hunt down and deal with Al Qaeda without having to spend $Trillions of taxes and destroying the Bill of Rights.

But to get the help of the Islamic peoples, we have to rein in the greed and influence of some US power groups.

We have to deal with the three reasons Bin Laden gave for war on the USA:

(a) Our support for Likud's aggression against the Palestinians in pursuit of "Greater Israel" (Which requires that we also deal with the malignant religious con artists on the Christian right who support that aggression )

(b) our support for the Saudi Kleptocracy and

(c) the enormous death and destruction we have inflicted on the Iraqi people.

While Sunni Al Qaeda has little liking for Shite Iran, I think an attack on Iraq would also gain Al Qaeda renewed support and adherents.

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 1:23 PM

Imagine how Bush, Cheney, or any of the Republican candidates except possibly Paul would answer. Clinton's answer seems perfectly fine to me.

Posted by Ron | October 23, 2007 1:25 PM

She's absolutely right - you can't declare war on a tactic. As some of us have been saying for years, it's like declaring a war on "snark" or "sarcasm" and then bombing enclaves of sarcastic people. Sounds ridiculous? It's because it is!

Posted by alli | October 23, 2007 1:26 PM

Switching my vote to Clinton, from Stephen Colbert, (from John "zero percent interest rates" McCain) because she used the phrase "the raisons d'être of terrorists".

Bien sur!

Posted by Peter K. | October 23, 2007 1:31 PM

By the way, Matt's post seems to suggest that she had to be pushed into really answering the question. I think her opening sentence did:

"Do you think that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, or do you think they have specific geopolitical objectives?

"Well, I believe that terrorism is a tool that has been utilized throughout history to achieve certain objectives. ..."

Seems like, without explicitly stating that "the terrorists hate us for our freedoms" is one of the dumbest things anybody ever said, she does a nice job of supporting that view.

Posted by David in NY | October 23, 2007 1:41 PM

I think the idea that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" is an absurd political talking point.

OBL and his gang hate us because we're between him and his goal of conquering the Muslim world (and because most of us are infidels). He couldn't care less about our freedoms.

Posted by Jinchi | October 23, 2007 2:16 PM

She seems to have the right answer here, at the end of the day, but she's very cautious about saying it. I wonder about this

I'm no Hillary fan. In fact she annoys me to no end - and I'm convinced that she will screw up healthcare next time just as badly as she did last time.

Nevertheless, no, no she was not being cautious; she was applying some of the hard analytical approach to the problem that is long, long overdue.

This is little more than the fundamental strategic principal of "know thy enemy."

Posted by Duncan Kinder | October 23, 2007 2:23 PM

Right answer? What about no answer.

Clinton: "terrorism is a tool that has been utilized throughout history to achieve certain objectives." Does that make sense or would it be better had she said "to attempt to achieve."

Next Clinton states: "There are personality-driven terroristic objectives." What is that supposed to mean?

Remember the question relates to the USA, that is, do they hate our freedom or have specific geopolitical objectives in relation to the USA. What do the Tamil Tigers and the Basque separatists, have to do with the USA. Even more Clinton says the Tamil, Basqe and al-Anbar insurgents "may" only be connected by tactics. Does she suggest there's a possibility they are otherwise connected?

Then she ends by saying because we lump all the terrorists into one group it has "not been particularly helpful in understanding what it is we were up against when it comes to those who pursue terrorism for whichever ends they're seeking."

Does this means that after all these years she has no idea what the ends these terrorists seek who are fighting us?

She wants to be president and cannot even seem to reach for an answer why the terrorists are attacking us. And Matt says, "she seems to have the right answer" and most of you agree. Give me a break.

Posted by Llyonnoc | October 23, 2007 2:34 PM

"may only be connected by tactics."

In the passage excerpted Senator Clinton does not state anything beyond the obvious. You are giving HRC points for merely suggesting the possibility that Basque separatists and insurgents in al-Anbar do not have the same goals. I can't believe merely recognizing terrorism is a tactic wins plaudits around here.

"Well, some do. But is that a diagnosis? I don't think it's proven to be an effective one."

Supports the idea that some terrorists hate us for our freedoms. Asks a question and then gives her own half answer that consists of a hedge and a poor choice of adjectives.

Posted by R U Kidding | October 23, 2007 2:40 PM

I'm no Hillary fan. In fact she annoys me to no end - and I'm convinced that she will screw up healthcare next time just as badly as she did last time.

Nevertheless, no, no she was not being cautious; she was applying some of the hard analytical approach to the problem that is long, long overdue.

Agreed. I can't stand Hillary-- I think electing her will mean indefinite war in Iraq, no universal health care for another generation (because she refuses to make single payer the baseline to negotiate down from), and probably, war with Iran as well (based on her recent vote for the Iran war resolution).

But I see nothing wrong with her answer on this at all. It is well thought out and right in its particulars.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 23, 2007 2:45 PM

Re Llyonnoc's comment "She[Hillary] wants to be president and cannot even seem to reach for an answer why the terrorists are attacking us."
----------
If you've just taken over $1 Million from Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban -- who tells Haaretz you will be "good for Israel" -- then it's kinda hard to tell the Guardian that Bin Laden said he would attack the USA because the US has killed a lot of Muslim civilians on behalf of Israel. And because the US Government gives Israel F16s with which to kill even more.

Maybe you begin to see why Dick "Seize the Oil" Cheney goes around with that big smirk on his face.

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 2:48 PM

"She's absolutely right - you can't declare war on a tactic. As some of us have been saying for years..."

Some of you have been deliberately obtuse about this. The war is obviously against radical Islamists, not against their tactic, terror. Bush used the phrase "War on Terror" as politically correct dodge to avoid the perception that we were at war against all of Islam. This is the same reason why he went out of his way to invite D.C.'s Muslim diplomatic corps over for a lamb and rice dinner after 9/11, why he invited a Muslim Imam to say a prayer at the national cathedral, why he continually called Islam a "great religion" and a "religion of peace". You'd have to be dense to not understand this.

"I think the idea that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" is an absurd political talking point."

They've got different reasons for hating us, but in two senses, they do "hate us for our freedoms". In one sense, they hate us for the things we are able to do with our personal freedom -- see, for example, the musings of Sayyid Qutb, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, out of which Al Qaeda evolved. Qutb, when he lived in America for a couple of years, was horrified by the freedom men and women had to dance together here. In another sense, Al Qaeda clearly hates democracy, which is why they tried to kill Iraqis and Afghans who had the temerity to vote in UN-monitored free elections.

Posted by Juan | October 23, 2007 2:50 PM

Plus, let's not forget that shiny new Spanish TV network --Univision -- that Haim Saban just bought. A Network which will be telling Hispanic swing voters in California, Texas, and Florida who to vote for in Nov 2008.

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 2:52 PM

"Vote por la gran puta Hillary, por favor" , to be precise.

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 2:55 PM

Dan: I would rather hear a candidate say "WE need to think more about this" than say "*I* have thought about this," because it acknowledges that they know they will not own the entire danged country. The Executive Branch is one-third of the federal government, people, not the whole she-bang. I WANT someone who will work with the other two branches AND the American people instead of playing cowboy and trying to run the whole show.

Nobody knows enough to tackle terrorism all on their own, not even someone with an Ivy League degree. This is something that requires coordination among many, many people--including the folks who have been branded terrorist. (Don't forget, once upon a time WE were terrorists--to the British! Just because we didn't have plastique and airplanes back then doesn't mean we weren't breaking British law.)

Posted by Dana | October 23, 2007 3:17 PM

Juan,

"They hate us for our freedom" was one of the stupidest and most annoying phrases that have ever come out of a president's mouth. No amount of sophistry on your part can change that fact. What is most annoying about it is the way that it involves smugly patting ourselves on the head about how wonderful we are, while insisting that our enemies can only possibly want to harm us for our most noble qualities.

Yes, clearly radical Islamists do not want to have Western style freedoms. However, this is far down on their list of motivations for attacking us. Are we really so insecure that we can't be honest about what their problem with us is? It doesn't mean we have to agree with it.

Posted by Jim W | October 23, 2007 3:37 PM

Bush used the phrase "War on Terror" as politically correct dodge to avoid the perception that we were at war against all of Islam.
Being at war against Islam makes a fight for democracy in Iraq - or anywhere else in the Middle East - pointless. If we're at war against Islam, why give a hoot about elections? I didn't see any Afghans or Iraqis converting after they voted.

Posted by Lynn | October 23, 2007 3:44 PM

Dana,

A person with a responsible position in the national government, particularly a member of the Armed Services Committee, who has surely given a lot of thought since 9/11, if not before, to the whole issue of terrorism, and who has presumably read a certain number of published books and studies on the topic, should by this point have an informed opinion on the question of the causes of contemporary terrorism. I suspect Clinton has such an opinion, but is not comfortable about sharing it.

She's dancing around this one because she knows that admitting some terrorists employ terrorism to achieve political aims that are a direct response to certain US policies in the Middle East would open up a huge can of worms that she doesn't want to open up. Before long, people would be asking smart-alecky questions about which of those policies are wise and which are not, which are in the national interest and which are not. And any consequent suggestion that we might change some of these policies would then raise howls of "appeasement," as well as throw a scare into all of the various vested military and foreign policy interests - interests that are HRC's bread and butter - who are determined to maintain the current policies in their rough present form.

Good luck to any reporter getting HRC - or the other major candidates for that matter - to open up on this topic. It's a taboo subject.

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 23, 2007 4:15 PM

Re Lynn's comment " If we're at war against Islam, why give a hoot about elections? I didn't see any Afghans or Iraqis converting after they voted."
-----------
Actually, the last thing Bush/Cheney would allow is free elections in Egypt or Morocco. We LIKE Dictators --so long as they are OUR Dictators.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddam_Hussein%26Donald_Rumsfeld_handshake.jpg

And pigs will fly before you see Bush/Cheney advocating "democracy" in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the other oil kleptocracies we support. Which was one of the three reasons behind the Sept 11 attack.

But Bush could hardly admit that whoring for Big Oil and its puppets had provoked Sept 11 -- so he showed his respect for "Democracy" by lying to 290+ Million Americans about what caused the attack.

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 5:16 PM

This Juan character seems to be utterly crazy. I suppose the Zionism must be eating his brain.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | October 23, 2007 5:24 PM

Re Dan's comment "Good luck to any reporter getting HRC - or the other major candidates for that matter - to open up on this topic. It's a taboo subject. "
----------
Good luck in getting any reporter to even INFORM the American public that the "taboo subject " even exists.

After all, The 911 Commission showed their respect to the families of 911 victims by pledging to find out the truth -- and ,much later, put out a report that DELIBERATELY refused to address WHY the attack occurred.

And EVERY GODDAMM ONE OF our great men on that Commission -- DEmocrat as well as Republican -- went along with that scam. With NO Protest.

That shows you just how much respect they have for us.

The problem is not that George W Bush lied to us -- it is that he got so much help --from both sides of the aisle in Congress and from all of the major US news organizations.

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 5:24 PM

I agree with Dan Kervick - sorry, Dan, that will get you in trouble here...:-)

Clinton is just doing the usual "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm smarter than the Republican morons, so I'll finesse my way out of it rather than say something stupid and bombastic" schtick...

That's not really someone to vote for.

Ron Paul would have made the same points more directly and a lot more besides. More importantly, it's more likely that he would believe them and act that way.

Clinton? Doubtful to the max.

I've never doubted that Clinton is smart - both of them are, and it's not clear to me which one is smarter.

But that doesn't make them either correct on the issues, or necessarily people who even care if they are correct on the issues.

Clinton is WRONG on Iran. She is WRONG on Israel and Palestine. And she's shown ZERO evidence that she understands the proper approach to countering terrorism which has little if anything to do with military operations outside the United States.

It's that simple.

The same is true of Obama, I might add.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 7:54 PM

The problem with Ron Paul, Mr. Hack, is that he hasn't the slightest possible chance of getting nominated, and, if by some miracle he was nominated, none to be elected. I say this with a little sorrow since I have libertarian leanings. The fact is, we are probably going to have to choose between Clinton and Giuliani.

I have disliked HRC since the health-care debacle. I was a mid-level career official in the Labor Department at the time and was just flabbergasted at how such an important issue could have been handled so badly. A perfect storm of "Wonks Gone Wild." My experience with her co-conspirator, Ira Magaziner, was that he is the master of achieving group consensus for policies that have no possible chance of being accepted outside of the group.

However, as the recent Newsweek article on RG shows, Rudy is listening to the same neo-con wonks who have led us into such disastrous foreign policy adventures. I think he is truly dangerous.

Unfortunately, and I really mean that, Ron Paul is irrelevant.

Posted by Joseph A. Hines | October 23, 2007 8:36 PM

I have to admit that I'm stumped by the discussion here about Clinton on terrorism, as well as by Matt's framing of it. The answer was clear and it was correct. All of the other answers were great. The gap between her and everyone else in either party is just enormous, and I think that realization--that in some sense she's too damn perfect a politician, and too creepy because she's somewhat progressive and we're not used to those kind of people among us--is behind a lot of the absurd vitriol against her. I prefer to think of her as cosmic reward for enduring Gore and Kerry.

Posted by Rich | October 23, 2007 9:03 PM

Patti Doyle - Don't you have better things to do than post as "Rich" on Yglesias' blog.

Posted by ban all post from hillaryclinton.com | October 23, 2007 9:58 PM

Rich, I agree that Clinton is a skilled politician. But since she is not on my side, I regret that fact rather than celebrate it. Ronald Reagan was a skilled politician as well.

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 23, 2007 11:34 PM

I agree that Ron Paul is irrelevant. I was merely pointing out the difference in willingness to take a stand based on principle.

Dan, I don't celebrate Clinton being smart either. But it's still better than having a a Giuliani moron - not to mention nutcase - as President.

Besides, she has "cleavage" - if you can call it that. Personally, I'd rather see Angelina Jolie run for President - we'd get more humanitarian attitudes, far less war and far more cleavage.

As an anarchist, of course, I don't want anybody to be President - although just to screw with everybody, I wouldn't mind starting an independent campaign to get Vladimir Putin to run as President with British MP George Galloway as Vice-President.

They'd probably be as smart and unprincipled as Clinton - and likely more so - but at least they'd be against the real enemies of the US population: Israel and the neocons and the oil companies.

'Course, like most politicians, they'd probably get bought off a week into the campaign - just like Clinton, Obama, and the rest of them.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 24, 2007 7:59 AM

Actually, the last thing Bush/Cheney would allow is free elections in Egypt or Morocco.
Exactly, Don. That's why I attempted to point out Juan's deliberate obtuseness, to use his phrase upthread. There's a serious flaw in stated right-wing logic. You can't possibly be for a war on all of Islam and want to "bring democracy" to its practitioners.

Posted by Lynn | October 24, 2007 12:13 PM