Posted on 09/04/2006 8:34:47 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Coleen Rowley has penned a piece over at the Huffington Post entitled “Demagoguery won’t keep us safe.” It is “classic” in terms of characterizing the Anti-war, Liberal, and Democratic stance in the war on terror. Firstly, while it is extremely critical of the current policies that are in use in the war on terror, it fails to offer a single alternative course of action. Anyone can be a critic, but to be a constructive critic requires that at a minimum, a plan to replace that which is in use.
Secondly, the accusation that the effort that is in place is “all about politics” actually says more about the accuser than the accused. Because being “all about politics” is on the first page of their playbook, they project their beliefs and behaviors on those they oppose. If their effort is sincere and about more than politics and rhetoric, where is their plan?
“Cheney insisted that opponents of the occupation are not "serious" about fighting terror, while Rumsfeld accused critics of wanting to "Blame America First".
So what’s wrong with stating an obvious truth? Here is what else she had to say:
1. Bravado is no substitute for policy. In the absence of a detailed plan for success in Iraq --- and it's abundantly clear more than three years in that there is none --- the Bush position essentially boils down to Chamberlain's: trust that the government knows what it's doing.
Chamberlains plan was a lesson in the futility of appeasement, which, incidentally, seems to be the preferred avenue for those who do not have a plan in this current situation. He waved a piece of paper in the air and did nothing. That certainly cannot be said about this President. The President Outlined The Strategy To Win The War On Terror. or this Waging and Winning the War on Terror, or this President Requests $72.4 Billion for the Global War on Terror or Fact Sheet: Progress and the Work Ahead in Iraq
2. Military force is ineffective against insurgencies. Yet despite the administration's acknowledgement that the terrorist threat is "a different kind of enemy," they still believe terrorism can be defeated militarily. It is even less effective when focused on a single country in an effort to defeat a global enemy like al Qaeda.
Did you forget about Afghanistan? There is an ongoing operation there to defeat terrorism. Name one situation when negotiation was successful with a terrorist group without military action. If terrorism can’t be defeated militarily, how is it going to be defeated at all? What is your plan that guarantees success, for certainly we must agree that failure in the war on terrorism is not an option, unless you define success as delaying things until your children and grandchildren have to deal with it.
3. Our choices are not limited to all-out war or 'appeasement'. The Cold War was 'cold' because we never directly engaged the Soviets in combat.
If you want a lesson in the limitations and liabilities of relying solely upon diplomacy and negotiation, just watch what happens in Iran. In regards to the Cold War, the Soviets were a rational government who understood what MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) really meant. They did not arm proxy terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction, as is the current threat today. Read the instructions in the terrorist training manual recovered in Manchester, England last year and tell me what you think the prospects of negotiation really are. Be sure to take note of the Introduction, page 5.
4. Violating civil liberties in the name of security is a mistake There is no question history will render the same verdict on President Bush's illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of innocent Americans.
History will also surely have another verdict if things start blowing up and there are mass casualties within our national borders.
There is one final lesson of history, not for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, but for the American people. The two U.S. presidents who have come closest to 'appeasement' in Iraq are Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, each of whom turned a blind eye to massacres Saddam Hussein committed against his own people.
And where where YOU and President Clinton when all this was going on for the past 30 years in Iraq? At least that aspect of the genocide has finally stopped. Were it up to you, it would still be going on.
Bravado is not a defense against terrorism, and neither is demagoguery. It's time America had leaders who understand that.
"A timid person is frightened before a danger, a coward during the time, and a courageous person afterward." Jean Paul Richter
It’s also time the American people understood that we cannot hand the war on terrorism to the timid and cowardly people among us.
The Constitution itself recognizes that things are different during wartime, such as allowing for suspension of haebas corpus during such. And the writings of the Founders, the men who wrote the Constitution, also recognizes that fact.
If were were not at war, it would be amusing to watch the left wing worship one aspect of the Constitution limiting powers as they have for years been the cheerleading squad for unlimited federal power just about everywhere else in our lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.