[lit-ideas] Re: with or without Bush
- From: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:33:06 +0900
On 2004/08/03, at 15:49, Andreas Ramos wrote:
> After 9.11, even if one took the most generous pro-Bush position, one
> must admit that the US
> government could have done very little because, as the Report points
> out in overwhelming
> detail, the government system has been completely incapable at all
> levels of dealing with al
> Qaeda. Even if Bush were George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and
> Albert Einstein all in one,
> he would not have been able to do much.
Sad, but all too predictable to anyone with a sense of history. The
United States military and intelligence agencies and the
military-industrial complex of which they form an integral part are a
vast bureaucratic labyrinth born of the two World Wars and the Cold War
that followed them, in which the underlying assumption is that war
involves nation states, organized in competing alliances. To reorganize
the labyrinth to deal with what the experts call "asymmetric" conflict
involving nations on the one hand and fluid transnational networks of
terrorists on the other will be a herculean task.
What we do know, however, about the Bush administration is that it
didn't even try prior to September 11, its policies being focused on
national missile defense (another great military-industrial complex
boondoggle) and the rise of China as a potential new great power
competitor. The threat that Al Qaeda represented was totally off its
radar. (Bill Clinton was, despite the personal issues that distracted
him during the last years of his term, at least aware of the problem. I
can testify to that, having been in the audience that heard him speak
at my daughter's Commissioning Week at Annapolis in 1998.)
The attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraq reflect the same
nation-centered mindset, in which the "realistic" thing to do is to
attack "state sponsors" of terrorism--ignoring the fact that
transnational terrorists, like transnational corporations, act largely
independently of national borders.
What, then, of John Kerry? He will certainly confront the same
entrenched mindsets, turf wars, and bureaucratic inertia that any other
administration would. But he will bring to the table (1) an inquiring
and thoughtful mind and a willingness to address the problem instead of
sweeping it under the table and (2) a commitment and the ability to
rebuild the multinational alliances on which the global campaign
against terrorism will, to be successful, inevitably depend.
Kerry knows what that other Vietnam veteran, Bob Kerrey, says so
precisely: When it comes to security and the job of combatting
terrorism "the homeland is the planet." Those who would try to make of
the United States of America either a new Rome or a gigantic gated
community are doomed to fail. Only those with the will and the ability
to cultivate strong friends around the world stand any chance at all.
Kerry claims to have that will and that ability. George "Dubya"Bush
demonstrably has neither.
John L. McCreery
International Vice Chair, Democrats Abroad
Tel 81-45-314-9324
Email mccreery@xxxxxxx
>>Life isn't fair. Democracy should be. <<
To learn more about Democrats Abroad, see these websites
In Japan: http://www.demsjapan.jp
Worldwide: http://www.democratsabroad.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
