Take the Sullivan Challenge: Devise a Lefty Vision to Combat Terror

[BurtWorm]

Andrew Sullivan's challenge to Dems:

But, for all Cheney's and Rumsfeld's flaws, they are
at least proposing something serious, however
ineptly carried out. I have yet to hear anti-war
voices on the left propose a positive strategy for
defeating Islamist terror at its roots, or call for
democratization of the Arab Muslim world. Indeed, I
heard little but scorn or silence when Bush announced
this vision in London. Do the Democrats stand for
democracy in Iraq? Or in Iran? Do they favor
Beinart-style containment of Islamism? Nuclear
deterrence against Tehran? Certainly, the Kossites
seem utterly uninterested in any of these subjects.
That's their prerogative; and it's equally my
prerogative not to take them seriously until they do.

The same goes for the Dems as a whole. Until the
opposition party presents a progressive, democratic
agenda to reform the Middle East - as Blair has done
in Britain, for example - there's no reason to take
them seriously on national security. Maybe their
presidential candidate will articulate such a vision.
So far, however: so not so much.



My response begins by questioning the wisdom of valuing a demonstrably poor and failing policy (because it also demonstrates agreement with one's flawed diagnosis of a situation) over a policy that, because of obtuseness or blindness, one can't see. Pundits like Sullivan are constantly complaining about the left's lack of attention to the terror problem, not because the left doesn't have any ideas about it, but because the pundits don't have the intellectual tools to discern the left's ideas. We know why Sullivan, at least, is blind: he thinks the only possible solution involves "democratic reform" of the Middle East. He evidently can't distinguish between "democratic reform" and imperialism. He can't read the left's take on terrorism because he's looking in the wrong place--in a wasteland of "ideas" staked-out by the flawed vision of neocons--and he can't remove his filters to look beyond this wasteland and find what he's supposedly looking for.

The main problem with the "center-right" reading of the Middle East (CRRoME) is that it ignores--or wants to ignore--any context for the problem of Islamist terrorism. The CRRoME evidently views the Islamic world as one where you can drop the veil of democracy and expect a "Western-style" tolerance for diversity to suddenly flourish. (Of course, if those who hold the CRRoME would only look at American-style democracy ca. 2006, they'd realize that tolerance for diversity isn't a default position in any society.)

My suggestion to Sullivan and other CRRoME-holders would be to clear the slate of their own views first. Don't assume "democracy reform" is a realistic, let-alone the only possible, solution to Islamist terrorism. Granted, in theory democracy is a wonderful goal for any society. But it can't be imposed from without using imperialist tactics, and any society so hurried toward it (or toward any imperialistically imposed structure) is a natural breeding ground for terrorists.

All this said, I'm aware I haven't answered my own question of how to deal with terrorism. I'm curious how other DUers would answer. I suspect (and hope) many would hold a similar view to that of Susan Sontag, one of 9/11's first First Amendment martyrs, who had the audacity to suggest US foreign policy in the Islamic world may have had something to do with the attacks--which wasn't to blame America first, as rightist idiots unthinkingly protested immediately, but to put the attacks in a meaningful context, which is always the first step toward finding a meaningful solution. I believe a solution must lie in somewhere in that same fertile ground of thought. It will take a major shake up of the political scene before the country musters the will to return to that ground.

[Franknable]

1. First, please define "terror" and "terrorism". Thank you. EOM

nt

[BurtWorm]

2. Let's say "terrorism" is a violent tactic, often used against civilians,

to attack a power or state in retaliation for a perceived injustice.

How would you define it?

[newyawker99]

16. Hi Franknable!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[xchrom]

3. without getting into all the u.s.'s policy in the middle east --

you fight terrorism with secret ops -- on the ground folk who are constantly working to become one with these groups -- period.

you don't blow up whole countries to capture and arrest a few bad guys.

it's what france, italy and even spain do with great efficacy.

they have their agenst constantly working on information -- and don't over rely on elctronics -- it's inaccurate at best as we've seen.

now, agreed it is simply stupid to give kudos to bushco for failed policies simply because they tried -- that's what got bush ''elected'' in 00 -- he ''tried'' and that was good enough for evrybody -- and the result is we haven't even gotten ''good enough'' out of president numb nuts.

[endarkenment]

4. A. Sullivan: self loathing asshat.

And no thanks on the challenge.

Oh nevermind: here get the fuck out of Iraq, stop the one sided support of Israel, and spend all the saved loot on energy independence, universal healthcare, and college tuition subsidies.

Oh, and turn the antiterrorist activities over to the FBI for domestic operations and the CIA for foreign operations and stop pretending that it is a military problem. It is a law enforcement and intelligence problem.

[beachmom]

5. Good post. I have a speech here from John Kerry which is

from last December, and I just think it is fantastic, and does speak at length about combating global terrorism ("terrorism" is defined as the radical islamist movement al Qaeda and any al Qaeda subgroups whose intent is to kill, destroy, and maim Americans, westerners, as well as other innocents all over the world so that they can create a utopian Islamist world). Here is the link:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1340

One interesting piece of his policy vision is that energy independence is a key component for our national security -- I think that is a huge departure from the Bush Doctrine and worth noting. Here are a few excerpts:

For all their rhetoric about democracy, human rights, the hateful ideology of our adversaries, and international coalitions against terrorism, the President and his advisors have shown time and time again that they conceive the war on terror as almost exclusively a military operation. That’s why they’ve been so willing to bend every relationship and international institution–to bend, in fact, our own values and respect for norms of behavior America has long championed. Make no mistake, we are united in our commitment to track down and kill the evil men who would harm us. But that alone will not win the real war on terror.

The real war on terror is an even bigger challenge. It is a war that has drawn us smack into the middle of an internal struggle in the Islamic World. It is fundamentally a war within Islam for the heart and soul of Islam, stretching from Morocco East to Indonesia. -It leads, ultimately, to a struggle for the transformation of the Greater Middle East into a region that is no longer isolated from the global economy, no longer dependent on despotism for stability, no longer fearful of freedom, and no longer content to feed restive and rising populations of unemployed young people a diet of illusions, excuses, and dead end government jobs.

As the 2004 Arab Human Development Report tells us, “By 21st century standards, Arab countries have not met the Arab people’s aspirations for development, security and liberation … Indeed, there is a near-complete consensus that there is a serious failing in the Arab world …located specifically in the political sphere.” And in addition, in regions where the mosque remains the only respected alternative to the autocratic state structures, there is no credible secular alternative. So we are caught in a cauldron of religious struggle where today there is no center of moral authority that forcefully condemns those who murder in the name of Islam.

In the long run–and we’re in this for the long run-the war on terror cannot be won without the successful transformation of the Greater Middle East, and especially its Arab core. And our strategy must do what it takes to increase the internal demand for change in that region.

That means we are in a war of ideas and ideologies–but ultimately a war that must be fought and won within the Islamic world.

Here is a bit of his thinking on how oil plays a role in our problems:

And ultimately, that means we must liberate ourselves and the Middle East itself from the tyranny of dependence on petroleum, which has frustrated every impulse towards modernization of the region, while giving its regimes the resources to hold onto power.

We have to understand that the hostility to America and to our values that feeds the jihadist threat is the product of many decades of repressed debate within the Middle East. We’ve become the convenient excuse for the failures of the rulers, and the convenient target for the frustrations of the ruled.

And frankly, we’ve made that possible by signaling Arab regimes we don’t much care what they do so long as they keep the oil flowing and the prices low. That attitude must not only end; it must be reversed. Energy independence is not just a domestic priority for our country. It’s also essential to our national security, because our reliance on their oil limits our ability to move them towards needed reforms and props up decaying and sometimes corrupt regimes, including those that support terrorist groups. Any long-term strategy for winning the war on terror must therefore include a determined effort to reduce our dependence on petroleum. So many opportunities to do that are staring us in the face, but none have been seized with the urgency our security demands.

And these efforts have to be international in nature, linked to the rapid emergence of new energy technologies, in order to ensure that growing economies like China and India don’t just replace us as the enablers of Middle East autocrats.

So this is the long range mission in the war on terror: one, make sure the right side wins the war of ideas within the Islamic world; two, build up diversified economies and civil society; and, three, end the empire of oil. These three challenges make it abundantly clear this is not a war the United States should fight alone.

I sent this speech to Andrew, and he ignored it because he hates Kerry, especially since Kerry wants our troops removed from the immediate war theater in Iraq, while Andrew thinks they should stay and continue to be killed. But as usual for many pundits, he doesn't seem to get that such a strategic withdrawal will give us strength to be able to fight the real war on terror. And, of course, we would still be keeping our eye on al Qaeda in the region.

Anyway, hope this thread keeps going, because we need to start thinking about this, instead of just being anti-Bush (but still be that, too, just not only).

[Sinti]

6. Well, we could start by NOT being the enforcers for the Saudi regime

Then we could move on to NOT supporting the junta that took over in a military coup from the democratically elected leader of Pakistan years ago.

We could support Actual freedom of thought, and real reform in the ME, rather than dropping bombs and expecting them to come running toward a new Western-style government as their salvation.

We could acknowledge that we were wrong in unseating Mohammad Mossadegh and replacing him with the Shah in Iran, which eventually led to the crisis and governance style they have now. We could open a dialogue, men who sit down to talk rarely shoot each other. Tehran isn't going to commit suicide given another option. I would expect that inspectors can do their job regarding the nuclear facilities they have. We gave them their first nuclear tech back in the '70s when our puppet was in charge.

We could go after the money that supports terrorism, much of which comes from the Saudi Royals and their many princes. I can understand why they support terror, after all, as long as the great unwashed are busy hating us and Israel they won't look to the palaces in anger, and blame them their miserable impoverished existence.

We can treat terror as a criminal enterprise, and people in the ME (the terrifying Arab street) would support us if we, in turn, supported their right to live as equals, regardless of whether they favor Western corporate interests.

I could go on, but I'm wasting my breath here, I'm sure. I thought the way to beat terror was by, first and foremost, not allowing yourself to be terrorized - I guess I was wrong.

Tell me, why is a Hezbollah web site being hosted by a U.S.-Related Saudi Defense Contractor??

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6854

[sinkingfeeling]

7. The best way to deal with 'terrorism' is to remove the 'root': the view

that West only wants to take from the Muslim/Arab countries. This would involve actually having the State Dept. sit down with the leaders of all Arab/ME countries to discuss what needs to happen. Be it, that Iraq must be partitioned into separate areas for the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. If Iraq leaders want the US out of their country, then we should beg the UN and NATO to fill in the gaps and remove ourselves from all those permanent bases and the Green Zone...to Kuwait or somewhere. We need to broker an agreement between the PLO and Israel and one between Israel and Hezbollah. We then, need to dump a ton of humanitarian aid into these countries. We need to get our 'contractors' and corporations out of their countries and allow reconstruction efforts put the Lebanese and Iraqis back to work. We need to talk directly with Iran and help them to develop their nuclear energy, while keeping the development of a bomb from happening. We need to STFU about 'good' vs. 'evil' and that includes shutting down the pundits calling for a military solution. Democracy could grow in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iran....if we don't kill it first with endless war-mongering.

No body trusts the US government at this point, including our former allies. We have to change this view and make sure that we actually follow up on any promises we make.

Then to fight the remaining discontents, we need to beef up the CIA and FBI and treat threats as police matters, just like Britain has done.

[warrens]

8. Go where the real terrorists are

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Put the boot on Israel's neck to create a Palestinian state. Shut off all aid to Israel until they do it. And if necessary, use unilateral and U.N. sanctions.

If the Arab world saw some modicum of fairness in our treatment of various countries, based not just on their willingness to allow us a base of operations, it would cool tempers worldwide. Iran was one of the most pro-Western countries imaginable until we backed a corrupt Shah and when he got booted, let him live his last months in luxury, while spitting at the people who kicked his CIA ass out.

[treestar]

9. There are a million suggestions, it's that the right wing nuts don't

listen to them, don't want to know about them, or shut them down immediately. He has "yet to hear a Democrat" with a solution? Bullshit.

It is obvious to anybody: get damn good intelligence about actual likely terrorists, not just darn good intelligence meant to prop up a desired war.

[MrModerate]

10. But to reply to Sullivan . . .

The analogy of the hole is our starting point: "When you find you've dug yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging." Bush's witless war and incompetent execution thereof have put America in an unenviable position -- there are NO steps we can take at this point that won't cause serious pain. We HAVE wrecked Iraq and turned it into a terrorist training/recruitment ground and will have to live with the consequences for decades.

What do we do? We get out. We stop bleeding blood and treasure, we call our military home and begin refitting and stitching them back together, and gird our collective loins for the chaos that will likely sweep the region. To anyone who can count on their fingers, this is preferable to being there when the chaos sweeps, which is inevitable anyway.

Having gotten out, we focus the so-called "War on Terror" as it should have been focused on September 12, 2001: heightened international cooperation; sharp, persistent, and well-funded police work; broadly applied pressure on states that acquiesce to terrorist operations within their borders; revitalization of nonproliferation efforts; properly conceived and funded antiterrorist security measures to protect their favorite targets (transportation systems) and targets that are both highly vulnerable and potentially disastrous (e.g., chemical and refining facilities); and serving as an example of why religious extremism is a loosing game by living up to our own beliefs of tolerance and the rule of law.

The military component of the GWOT is the most expensive and least effective method the Bushies have tried -- and they didn't even invade the right country!

What I've outlined above (which is not original with me) can be articulated and defended easily. It has one overwhelming virtue: IT'S NOT STUPID.

Since I'm wearing my optimist's cap today, I'm sure we'll see more of this sort of thinking as November approaches.

[beachmom]

12. Sounds like our message in 2004, yet people didn't vote for it

because they liked the idea of "WAR!", whereas law enforcement and good intelligence sounded less dramatic and hopelessly inadequate to assuage the FEAR! that plagued the American people in 2004 (well not all of us, but too many).

Here's hoping what Kerry said in '04 will gain a larger audience this time around, because it makes more sense than ever right now.

[MrModerate]

15. I don't think the story was told very well in 2004 . . .

One of the reasons that people who might have voted for Kerry because of his experience and intellect ended up not doing so was because he danced around the issues so much that he obscured his own position. This was interpreted as weakness, and an inability to stand up to the hard stuff. Bush simulated being able to do so (even if it was with the brains of a stump being whipped by a chain).

Kerry said more than once "I have a plan . . ." but no one (me included) ever got a sense of what that plan actually was.

I think this needs to be ticked off point by point while counting on one's fingers. There's a reason sound bites work well: because humans are able to assimilate information that's properly "chunked," i.e., broken down to its essentials and presented without unnecessary rhetorical dressing. Politicians are typically loathe to do so, even when you rub their noses in the fact that a reputation for "plain speaking" will win you tons of votes.

Kerry doesn't have a reputation for plain speaking because he's permanently trapped in a nested nuance loops, and Bush (while he tried to pretend to plain speaking) doesn't have that reputation because he can't say "good morning" without swallowing his tongue.

But there are plenty of Dems out there who are plenty articulate and genuinely (or well-simulated) plainspoken, and I think the time is right for them to be heard.

[blm]

17. Sorry, but I have gotten it for years, even BEFORE 9-11. Kerry did a GREAT

job of articulating the plan because he came up with most of it MANY YEARS BEFORE 9-11. The BCCI investigation was all about tracking the international financial networks of global terror groups.

The corpmedia did its best to instill confusion and vagueness into the minds of the more casual viewers and they would have done it with ANY Democrat. Kerry has always been clear as a bell about fighting terrorism and has been for almost two decades.

Too bad the idiots the Dem party serves up as spokespeople and pundits on the broadcast media, and the young left media haven't wrapped their brains around it.

And too bad so many in the Dem party trust these dumbass pundits and THEIR version of reality.

[politicasista]

18. It wasn't told because

we didn't have strong, unified Dems (there were very few) speaking up during the most crucial times of the 04 election (i.e. Smear Boat Liars, before/after each presidential debates, etc).

It is time for us to face reality. And that reality is that no Dem, regardless of how they communicate or where they were from would not have gotten his/her message out.

If we think this won't happen to other Democrats, then we are in for a rude awakening.

Were mistakes made? yes, but solely blaming the candidate for being "permanently trapped in a nested nuance loops" when there was a weak Dem party infrastructure that sat on their backs and did nothing to help get his message out does not help us in 06 and beyond.

The entire party and left-leaning media/pundits let Kerry down period.

This is what we are facing on a daily basis. The corporate media is GOP controlled/owned and Dems have to find other ways to get the message out.

[MrModerate]

20. Don't get me wrong . . . I vote for Kerry with pride and confidence . . .

I just don't think he was the world's best campaigner. And frankly -- when all is said and done -- I think he won and voter fraud is the primary reason he's not in the White House today.

I think he would have made a perfectly adequate president, albeit doomed to fail in most iniatives because 1) weak Dem support (as you said), and 2) 'Lican control of the House and Senate.

[hfojvt]

11. that reminds me of the SNL skit

They spoofed Ted Kennedy talking about using a giant Trojan horse to free the Iranian hostages, and the narrator said "Excuse me, Senator, but isn't your plan ludicrous, at best?" and he answered "at least I have a plan"

The whole question begs the question - who says terrorism is a huge problem? The only "successful" terror attacks we have had in the last 30 years are - OKC bombing and 9/11. We dealt with those as best we could. Law enforcement seems to be preventing most of the others. To hear Bush talk, America is now like Israel or Iraq - with cars and buses blowing up almost every day. That simply is not the case. I still do not believe 9/11 would have happened if Gore had been President. Read my lips, Sully - LIHOP.

[MessiahRp]

13. Send in Sgt. Slaughter's group...

They seemed to infiltrate Cobra pretty well without the help of Duke or Flint or any of the other major GI Joe Military Players in GI Joe the Movie....

:)

Rp

[Rex]

14. Make war illegal and terrorism a hate crime.

Punishable in a court of law.

[Cobalt-60]

19. The British and Turks

dealt with Muslim troublemakers the same way: they disappeared.
Very soon the Muslims resumed fighting one another and the Imperial status quo was restored.
I would start with a crash program of alternate energy sources.
The only reason we're entangled with these people is petroleum. If we didn't need it we wouldn't have corporations screwing with them. Every barrel of oil we don't needs lessens our degree of engagement.
The same jerks claiming this can't be done are the ones who resisted even offering seat belts in automobiles for 50 years. They're the ones that handsomely profit from the current situation.
Infiltration of the Muslim sphere is important. Whether its specific intelligence or just an accurate sense of what's going on, it would be better than the fabrications and wishful thinking of the Republicans. This won't start bearing fruit for decades but we need to get it started.
When I used force it would be with a capital F, division strength or greater. And then only for a specific objective.
I would prevent ownership of defense stocks by congressmen. It's a sell off, a blind trust, or find another job.
I would subtly corrode their culture until they became us, like many other nations already have.
Being the good guys is vitally important. We don't want the first civilian thought at the sight of an American soldier to be 'If I'm taken it'll be torture'. It might be too late for that.
In the open I would purge our armed forces of anyone who even hinted that they approved of torture.
It's hard to get more specific without the details.
But I can guarantee the pile of Chimp poo will take decades to rake down.

[sandnsea]

21. Elect John Kerry President

Intelligence gathering, international cooperation, follow the money, serious homeland security measures, strong UN, ME summits, marginalize extremists, cooperative religious strategy, economic aid, special ops, and military as a very very last resort. Same as his strategy since at least 1997.

[blm]

23. Yeah Andy, too bad you didn't understand terrorism networks during BCCI

and sided with the GOPs who were PROTECTING those terror networks then.

Now, he wonders what a Dem would do? What a dumb ass - - - probably never even scratched the surface in BCCI, just like all the other pretend journalists.

[legin]

22. First job : dystroy the right wing

you can spend months doing the subtle groundwork needed with the warring factions on this planet.

All some right-wing arsehole has to do is hop into a jet armed with bombs, and he can dystroy your work in an instant.

You ain't going to achieve anything whilst the right wing are still on the planet.