Misplaced Priorities... And A Proposal For A Democratic War On Terror

If the Democrats wanted to finally fight back on the political aspects of the war on terrorism (which they appear to be doing to their credit), there seems to me a theme that they can use to sum up, and condemn, the Bush/GOP approach to that war... misplaced priorities.

Misplaced priorities like abandoning the hunt for bin Laden in order to pursue the misguided neoconservative adventure in Iraq. That debacle has also cost U.S. taxpayers over half a trillion dollars, money being wasted even as President Bush had been planning to cut airport security funding. Or misplaced priorities like the use of the war to expand presidential authority, when doing so has resulted in distractions and unnecessary constitutional conflicts. Misplaced priorities like dropping the hunt for the 2001 anthrax attack perpetrators when it appeared to be homegrown and difficult to trace. Misplaced priorities like ignoring the impact our dependency on foreign oil has on the war. Misplaced priorities like ignoring the advice of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, while demanding absolute loyalty to the failing Bush/Cheney approach. Misplaced priorities like firing much-needed Arab translators/linguists (who could have made the crucial difference in foreseeing 9/11) simply because of our closeminded, backwards, and homophobic military laws. 55 linguists have been discharged for being gay. That one's personal for me.

That does not seem to me the actions of those who take it seriously.

No politician, Democrat or otherwise, should be afraid to say this: the Bush/Republican approach to the issue of terrorism is a disaster just waiting to explode. Our safety is something we owe to the dedicated people in intelligence/law-enforcement agencies, in spite of the broader 'war on terror' policies.

The Democratic Party needs to come forth and call for a refocused, and serious approach to dealing with terrorism. This would primarly involve realizing that if a 'war on terror' is to become a lasting presence in our lives the way the Cold War was a generation ago- ideally with less propaganda and fearmongering, though- then we must realize (as John Kerry, Howard Dean, and others have tried to instruct to deaf ears a couple years back) that it is more an issue of international police work and not a problem that can be defeated by traditional military means. As conservative columnist George Will noted today, "F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England."

In addition, instead of actions which further radicalize Muslims/Arabs, we should reach out to the Muslim majority as allies of peace and encourage them to root out, and isolate, the radicals who would creep up around them-- while also addressing the root causes of radicalism in those countries.

Firstly, on the foreign-policy front, it means realizing terrorists don't have the easy connections to nation-states that fit into the traditional military planning that those running the Pentagon cling to. For instance, the terror suspects arrested in the U.K. were all homegrown British citizens. There is also word they may have had loose ties to Pakistan. Should our response to their plot then involve strikes on Britain and Pakistan? Of course not; and no one would suggest that. It should also be noted their plot had no connection to Iraq, Iran, Syria, or any of the other nations neocons have been planning to overthrow/occupy for a decade (those situations should be monitored strongly, of course, with an emphasis on united, international diplomatic pressure).

Military action in a 'war on terror' should be extremely limited- and targeted only. For instance, our original campaign in Afghanistan where bin Laden was residing and where his training camps were in high numbers, is an example of where action was needed (and has been mishandled by our leaders). Going beyond that- ie. preemptive wars and/or forcing democracy on random countries- is unnecessary and unjustified. Such actions have left our military depleted and ill-prepared for potentially unforeseen threats. They have also exascerbated the very problems they intended to solve. For the most part, the military should be used as a peacekeeping force (perhaps in the Sudan if resources allow?) and not an occupying power. U.S. taxpayer money should not be used to build permanent bases in the Middle East or toward military contractors for endless pork-barrel projects.

A general concensus should be reached with the Congress and American people before any military action is taken. Keeping the Congress fully informed will avoid future problems. Wherever possible, seek international allies (real allies, not the faux-coalition Bush strong-armed into signing on to his Iraq adventure). This will help restore America's perception abroad.

A move back toward diplomacy would also be key, part of which would include rebuilding international alliances and accepting a more even-handed approach. We would work with our Arab neighbors in the world, but also exert significant pressure on them to flush out the radical elements within their own borders (ie. recognizing that there's a world of difference between Hezbollah and the Lebanese people... and reminding the latter that they have the ability to marginalize the former). No more looking the other way.

Selected military strikes on terror camps/bases should not be ruled out, but we cannot engage in this haphazardly. We need to verify the intelligence as throroughly as possible. This sort of careful, cautious approach might cause the far-right hawks to gasp, but then they still mock President Clinton's accidental bombing of a Sudanese aspirin factory in 1998, when he was at least aiming at the right country- and bin Laden. Incidents like that do the United States great harm and risk civilian deaths.

Secondly, as we move away from a traditional military approach to a war on terrorism, refocus resources and manpower to intelligence and law-enforcement agencies... like the ones which foiled this plot in London, and could have foiled 9/11 had their eyes been on the ball. This does not mean disregarding laws, courts, and constitutional boundaries as the White House has insisted is necessary. Both Canada and the British authorities- who, by the way, seem to be outperforming us on this front in the past six months- proved that such extralegal violations are not necessary. It seems silly to throw away the freedoms one claims to be defending. Many of the common-sense, but ignored, recommendations for changes/improvements by the 9/11 Commission should be implemented.

Thirdly, we must move away from the Orwellian system of secret prisons and random torture and 'enemy combatants'. Places like Guantanamo Bay must be shut down and all prisoners either charged or set free. The recent Congressional ban on torture must be enforced in total, with an official condemnation of President Bush's circumventing signing statement. With a renewed recognition that the war on terrorism is less a military issue than an intelligence/police issue, all those arrested on suspicion of plotting terrorism must be processed through the regular avenues- not in kangaroo courts or without legal access. They must be either processed out in the open through military or civilian courts, depending on the specific case.

Finally, as I noted above, we need to end our dependency on foreign oil... and hopefully on oil itself, as much as possible. Congress should take official action to further alternative energy resources all across the country: corn-based ethanol, hybrid technologies, wind farms, hydro-power, solar energy, electrical cars, safe nuclear energy if possible, etc. This is near impossible right now because of the stranglehold Big Oil has on our elected officials, but someone in the Feingold mold must put pressure on their colleagues to end this. A move in this direction would note only be a benefit for our foreign policy, it would be a needed move toward environmental conservation in the wake of global warming, and would be a much-needed boost for the American economy.

This is a message that resonates. It's time to stop letting Karl Rove define what is the 'war on terror'. It's time to a) stop letting the war on terror dominate American life and politics, and b) take a serious look at the realities of terrorism and how to fight it.

But hey, what do I know, I'm just a liberal moonbat.