From: Monte Davis 

"Mark Hessey"  wrote:

>"In Greenville, South Carolina, last week, Kerry reiterated his commitment
>to the idea that the threat of international sub-state organizations is not
>primarily a military challenge: "It's primarily an intelligence and law
>enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."


Golly, Mark, it's odd that the Weekly Standard clipped the Kerry quote to
leave out the sentence immediately before:

"The war on terror is occasionally military, and it will continue to
be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most
well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today."

As for the rest, I agree with Kerry 100%. IF WE KNOW exactly where Osama
bin Laden is, it doesn't take a war to capture or kill him. IF WE KNOW
exactly which passenger on a DC-bound flight is a hijacker, it doesn't take
a war to stop him. IF WE KNOW exactly which bank account where is being
used by terrorists, it doesn't take a war to freeze it.

If we DON'T KNOW those things, an army won't be any help. To the best of
our knowledge Clinton's cruise missiles in Afghanistan missed bin Laden by
a few hours in 1998, just as our special forces in Afghanistan missed
catching him in 2001, and just as Bush's smart bombs in Baghdad missed
Saddam Hussein by a few hours several times in 2003.

OK: got the point of the need for intelligence? The better it is, the less
force you have to use.

Note that Kerry explicitly said "international sub-state
organizations" -- e.g., Al Qaeda -- NOT states -- e.g. Afghanistan or
Iraq.

Are Afghanistan and Iraq the same kind of case? No. The Taliban government
of Afghanistan -- a state -- explicitly welcomed and aided Al Qaeda over a
period of years. There was no sign that 9/11 had made them willing to
repudiate Al Qaeda. It was necessary to overthrow that state to get at that
sub-state organization, and we did. I supported the campaign in
Afghanistan, as Kerry and Gore and Clinton and most other Democrats did.

Now, Iraq in 2002. Nasty, totalitarian regime kinda like the Taliban?
Check. Hostile to the US, kinda like Afghanistan? Check. Mostly Muslim,
kinda like Afghanistan? Check. State support for Al Qaeda?

Uhh... well... maybe the files on that are hidden with the WMD stockpiles.
If either is found, I will come to Barkto Plaza at high noon, admit I have
been wrong, and agree that the war in Iraq was a good idea.

Until then, everything we know about Saddam Hussein, the Baath regime,
Osama bin Laden, and Al Qaeda's ideology strongly suggests that Hussein
despises and fears the radical fundamentalist mullahs in Iraq, in Iran, and
everywhere else... and bin Laden despises and fears the Baathists, the
Saudi elite, and other secular, nationalist regimes of the Middle East.
They both despise the US, but that doesn't make them allies.

>So, if you believe that one of the great virtues of George W. Bush's
>presidency since 9/11 has been its clarity and sense of overriding
>purpose--his willingness to call terror-sponsoring, anti-American states
>enemies and to oppose them--then John Kerry is obviously not the man for
>you.

I saw clarity and purpose at work in the war in Afghanistan. Then, in the
buildup to the war on Iraq, I saw deliberate LACK OF CLARITY -- deliberate
muddying of the water, dishonest skewing of intelligence data and analysis,
and a slick propaganda campaign that essentially said "hey, one
hostile raghead country is pretty much the same as another."

I saw not the same anti-terrorist purpose, but a DIFFERENT purpose at work:
to replace a regional troublemaker with a friendly or at least neutral
regime. THAT was the central purpose. Liberating the Iraqis and creating a
shining example of Arab democracy were probably sincere goals for some in
the Bush administration, but definitely secondary; the threats of Iraqi
WMDs and support for Al Qaeda were...

Well, they were bullshit, but hey, they sold the war, didn't they?

If "clarity" matters, Bush would have said: "We have no
evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and very little evidence
that Saddam Hussein is any more of a military threat than he was in 1992.
But as long as we're on a roll after Afghanistan, we're going to start
remaking the Islamic world. We'll begin with Saddam because he's a hostile,
evil SOB."

Trouble is, that probably wouldn't have sold. Too many Americans might
remember John Quincy Adams' view that much as we prize liberty, the U.S.
"goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and
vindicator only of her own."

Too many Americans might wonder if -- however noble our intentions -- we
*know how* to create friendly democracies in places like Iraq.

Too many Americans might wonder if an open-ended US campaign to remake the
Islamic world might do at least as much to spread Al Quaeda's brand of
radicalism as to quell it.

>If, however, you believe everything that's been accomplished since 9/11
>could have been accomplished through a more legalistic and diplomatic
>approach, in which the good opinion of Western Europe was treated as
>important as the demise of rogue regimes and their friends in the terror
>sector, then John Kerry probably is the man for you."

More of the same dishonest, deliberate muddying.

"Everything that's been accomplished since 9/11" -- well,
Afghanistan required a war, which succeeded in denying Al Qaeda a base and
disrupting its operations. Mission largely accomplished, even if the
leaders got away.

But since then, it is precisely "intelligence and law enforcement thet
requires cooperation around the world" which have rounded up Al Qaeda
operatives by the score in Europe, the Middle East, Pakistan, the
Phillipines, and elsewhere. Can you identify ONE captured in Iraq? Don't
bleat generalities about "rogue regimes and their friends": just
provide the evidence.

The Weekly Standard is trying to say "9/11 showed us the difference
between bad old Clinton with his [sneer] 'law enforcement' and good new
Bush and his [cheer] war."

In hindsight, there's plenty of blame to go around for *inadequate*
intelligence and law enforcement activity against Al Qaeda between the WTC
bombing in 1993 and 9/11. Plenty of blame, certainly, for Clinton and his
national security staff for not connecting the dots sooner and leaning
harder on Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan early on... for
not going after bin Laden personally again, harder, after missing in 1998.
Then there might have been no 9/11, and no need for a war.

But also blame for Bush and his NSC, who yawned through terrorism briefings
as they took office in early 2001 because they knew the REAL national
security issue was missile defense. Blame for Phil Gramm, who blocked
Clinton legislation to prevent terrorist money laundering because it would
mean more paperwork for banks. Blame for the Clinton haters who chanted
"wag the dog" when he went after bin Laden with missiles in 1998.
Maybe even some for those in the Reagan and first Bush administrations who
pumped everything they could into _jihad_ against the USSR in Afghanistan,
and encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to do the same.

("Hey, once the Evil Empire is beaten, whaddya think all those
thousands of devout _mujahedin_ we helped recruit, train and equip for a
decade will do?" "Oh, probably take up needlepoint.")

"the good opinion of Western Europe" -- well, maybe they're not
simply pacifist wimps. Maybe the 20th century (roughly 100 European war
dead for every American) left them a little less thrilled about drums and
trumpets and carrier landings than you are.

Maybe they noticed the same slick, dishonest sales job I did as Bush &
co. moved from a necessary war in Afghanistan that *did* have an impact on
terrorists to an elective war against Iraq that didn't.

Bottom line: I'm not especially impressed with Kerry so far. But his
distinction between the role of war and the role of international
intelligence and law-enforcement cooperation is clear, sensible, and
correct. And I prefer it by a wide margin to the bogus "clarity"
and shell-game "purpose" of Bush.

-Monte

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5