War on Terror in Campaign 08

The most significant moment in last week's Democratic presidential candidate debate came during the evening's most simplistic question. Moderator Brian Williams asked for a show of hands on whether the candidates "believe" there is a Global War on Terror, yielding a four-to-four split. It was a silly choice, since Williams was technically asking if the candidates believe that Bush's foreign policy exists, but it could still spark an important discussion. John Edwards was the only one of the "top three" candidates to vote no, which swiftly brought him praise, scorn and ridicule. After saying the U.S. must strongly deal with "dangerous leaders in the world," Edwards emphasized the need to use all the tools of foreign policy, not simply hard military power. His argument was not really a denial of the existence of Bush's Global War on Terrorism, but a nod towards an alternative.

There is really no denying that President Bush has organized U.S. foreign policy around an endless Global War on Terrorism (or "GWOT" in government circles). As he declared in his historic address to a joint session of Congress after 9/11, even if Al-Qaeda is destroyed, Bush envisions a war that "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." He means that literally. It is a war that targets a tactic instead of an enemy; like declaring war on war, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has noted. Without a defined enemy, of course, it is a war that can creep far from our vital security interests. In 2002, administration officials claimed Bush could invade Iraq without any congressional authorization at all, based on GWOT, and Condi Rice made the same claim about Syria in 2005. The administration invokes the same endless war to justify imprisoning American citizens without trial; suspending habeas corpus; illegally spying on American citizens; and detaining hundreds of people for years without charges in the lawless Gitmo prison. The policy is built on the twin fallacies that the best defense is a reckless offense, and the world wants (and hates) our freedom. In the name of fighting terror, President Bush aims to advance democracy abroad while restricting it at home, treating Congress and the Courts as barriers to national security. The 2005 National Defense Strategy report even argues American "judicial processes" can be a weapon of choice for our enemies.

Yet as everyone knows, GWOT has resulted in a total security failure. A new State Department report shows terrorism is up 29 percent; Bin Laden remains at large; Iraq is in a civil war, draining resources from counterterrorism and Afghanistan; and Gitmo, which has generated no major terrorist convictions, is such a failure that Defense Secretary Robert Gates made shutting it down one of his first priorities in office. Meanwhile, it is only through congressional and judicial oversight, which Bush derides as counterproductive to his endless global war, that the public has learned about critical vulnerabilities exploited by the 9/11 hijackers; false intelligence regarding WMDs; wasteful defense spending; and the failed detention system at Gitmo, to name a few items.

The question is not whether people "believe" these facts. The question is what the U.S. can do to change them.

Any credible presidential aspirant must present a detailed alternative to Bush's Global War on Terrorism. On the merits, it's hard to understand why candidates (in either party) would try to attach themselves to such a discredited policy from a very unpopular president. For too long, the Global War on Terrorism has been presented as little more than a tough slogan that all mainstream figures must support. By daring the candidates to doubt its existence in a show of hands, Brian Williams cracked the door just wide enough for simplistic protest. Now it's up to the candidates to elaborate on their proposed alternatives. And it's up to activists and voters to make sure this consequential issue stays on the agenda.

To that end, some Democratic bloggers are cheering Edwards and pressing other candidates to challenge the GWOT. MyDD's Matt Stoller writes that Edwards' opposition was a welcome "departure from the bipartisan consensus" backing GWOT. Writing on the same blog in 2004, Chris Bowers called on Democrats to abandon the war on terror frame. This argument is not confined to bloggers or liberal critics, either. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, an influential foreign policy adviser to Democrats across the political spectrum, argued in 2005 that while GWOT had "entered the English language" as the "way our highest national priority is described by almost everyone," it was simply "not an accurate description of America's enemy or of what we are engaged in." He called for jettisoning GWOT and adopting a more focused attack on Al Qaeda.

The public should demand leadership and bold policies from these candidates who would be president. So how about a show of hands of voters who believe in this position: Any candidate who cannot outline an effective alternative to Bush's failed Global War on Terrorism does not deserve to be president.

----

NOTES AND FURTHER READING

Zbigniew Brzezinski repeated his opposition to GWOT in an essay this weekend.

I elaborated on GWOT in this op-ed about the President's authority under the 2001 authorization of force, coauthored with Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and these remarks at last year's YearlyKos convention.

It's also worth noting that even the Bush Administration has conceded flaws in the GWOT framework, and it briefly experimented with a different concept in 2005. The Christian Science Monitor summarized responses to that effort at the time, and Democracy Arsenal's Suzanne Nossel proposed several alternative priorities.

Brian Williams felt that the NBC organizers were too restrictive with the debate time limits, which forced him to "suppress" his "instincts to challenge candidates on unanswered questions" almost a dozen times.

For a thorough analysis of whether GWOT is a sustainable foreign policy, check out this 2003 report by Dr. Jeffrey Record of the U.S. Army War College.

Comments (34)

1. Sadly pointing out the ChimpCo "state of confusion" that is the current status quo from the Admin...

   Posted by leftofcenter at 04/30/2007 @ 02:11am

2. i sincerely hope that at some point in this campaign, hopefully after the candidates get over the jitters, the idea of the in depth issue debates goes forward. then we could get some in depth answers. whoever i vote for had better throw out most of the talking point style canned air answers because i and the country are expecting a lot better these days, after the last few years. this invloves more than "i support everything good and oppose all bad".

   because i hate the bad too, and consider "terror" or the slightly more specific "terrorism" but i dont want anyone lying to me and telling me we are capable of completely altering human nature...

   when it comes to the "bad" in the long run we can do no better than manage and minimize...and that only when we have realistic expectations and specific, working definitions for terminology...not silly boogyman talking points bullshit...

   oh hey - more republican sex scandals - perhaps the guy in charge of prostitution busting worldwide was gettin some at a hoity toity washington ho' house...the DC madame...

   oh so typically hypocritical! ha ha ha! ho ho ho!

   to quote butthead...hey baby...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2007 @ 07:04am

3. Edwards' bet is that saying there is no GWOT wins him the liberal base of the Democratic party during the primaries, but won't lose him any of the Middle or Indies during the General Election...

   or can be "walked back" soon after Super Tuesday (if he wins).

   Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 07:14am

4. so much time...pols of both parties still seem to misunderestimate the schmuks, what the schmuks want to hear, how the scmuks want to be talked too...

   hint...stop apimg that billclinton style crimped thumbs up crap. makes you look like you're intentionally aping big bill...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2007 @ 07:25am

5. The questions centered around Bush's perpetual "war on terror" presented a prime opportunity for the candidates to reveal just how close or far away they are from Bush's warmongering. I caught the tail end of the debate, but from what I saw only two candidates distanced themselves significantly from the White House's policy: Kucinich and Gravel. Barack Obama lied to the audience, saying "there is no dispute" that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, in spite of a CIA draft report back in November that said there is no conclusive evidence of such a weapons program. Obama also lied in saying Iran has admitted to developing weapons. I don't know how denials of weapons-making translate into admissions, or how a CIA report saying there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program can be interpreted to mean the opposite; but that's exactly the sort of deceptive rhetoric Bush & Co. used against Iraq even though they knew for a fact that country was not developing nuclear weapons. Hillary Clinton was no different in the debate. That the so-called "top-tier" candidates choose to channel George W. Bush speaks volumes about their inability (and unwillingness) to lead us out of the Iraq war and avoid an unnecessary war with Iran.

   Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 04/30/2007 @ 07:31am

6. Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 04/30/2007 @ 07:31am

   Sorry, ARCH, but Gravel and Kucinich aren't going to win it. The "Top Tier" will and Edwards appears to be the less "belligerent" (if you want) of the Three.

   But even he's talked about "all options on the table" for Iran.

   Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 09:03am

7. BTW, I see RESE is up nice and early this morning....

   no doubt a 2000 word Cut & Paste or two about how "Jesuits are using flouridation to deplete and sap all of our precious bodily fluids, Mandrake!"

   Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 09:04am

8. Waging "war" on a tactic, as opposed to fighting a tangible entity, is patently illogical, and can only dilute our ability to keep our nation secure.

   It is, however, a marvelous device for frightening the populace into surrendering significant portions of their constitutional rights, and advancing the powers of an already arrogant and power-hungry executive branch. How many times has our faux cowboy referred to himself grandly as a "war president"? He and his had to create a "war" in order to steal power, because accruing respect and accomplishment through statesmanship and leadership is beyond impossible for those without honor.

   As the scandals mount, and the adminstration hemorrhages power, they also lose the ability to cover up their bad deeds. Contrary to what the right-wing apologists will tell us, shining a bright light on the Bush administration's acts will not be an act of partisan payback, nor will it create gridlock. It will be a necessary and vital component in the restoration of our democracy.

   To paraphrase Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday in the movie Tombstone, exposing the administration's many abuses will not be revenge.

   It will be a reckoning.

   Posted by drhammer at 04/30/2007 @ 09:36am

9. Posted by DRHAMMER 04/30/2007 @ 09:36am

   Nothing against Dennis Quaid, who did a fine job, but Kilmer really was the best "Doc", huh?

   "Ed, what an ugly thing to say. I abhor ugliness... does this mean we're not friends anymore? You know, Ed, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it. (sets his guns on the table) There. Now we can be friends again."

   Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 09:48am

10. Check out this speech by a former american president espousing transparency in government and demanding that the press hold our elected officials to account:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU

    WOW!

    Posted by plunger at 04/30/2007 @ 09:57am

11. The Conspiracy Theorists were right all along: http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com

    As for the recent sex scandal...See why blackmail is the number one problem we face? Do you honestly believe that the NSA and Mossad and CIA didn't already have all of the numbers listed in her little black book? Now do you see why the warantless wiretapping is so dangerous to our national security?

    Only men of low moral character are allowed into the political process in the first place - so as to control them through bribery, and subsequent blackmail.

    See the bigger picture.

    Posted by plunger at 04/30/2007 @ 10:00am

12. "I'm your huckelberry.."...my favorite...

    Kurt Russell wiped out Kevin as Wyatt...

    As far as terror war and terroists action against the US...the only person who actually answered the question regarding what would you do after the US attacked again was Hillary...I would retaliate...however, against who?...similar predicament as Bush...

    The worst answer..Obama...check out first responders? Check with allies and UN? He's done.

    Watch the "debates" again...listen to the actual questions asked, and then see if anyone answered anything remotely close to what was asked of them, or did they get their talking points out first and foremost..TIVO is great..Williams is weak for not demanding answers,,this is why average Americans should be asking the questions.

    This was a test drive for the second bannana seat for Hillary..all failed so far.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/30/2007 @ 11:04am

13. The Conspiracy Theorists were right all along: http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com

    Posted by PLUNGER 04/30/2007 @ 10:00am

    YOU WERE?!??!?!? You mean we've been in World War-III and under martial law ....FOR NEARLY A MONTH!??!?!?

    BLOG | Posted 03/28/2007 @ 02:14am MoveOn Launches Online Townhalls by Ari Melber

    "Time is up. World War III starts Friday – and it will coincide with conditions inside the US that lead to Martial Law, through either an Anthrax attack or a phony Bird Flu Outbreak."----Posted by PLUNGER 03/28/2007 @ 7:46pm

    ROFLMAO!

    Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 12:27pm

14. Hilary likes to line up on the side of those flexing their muscles to prove she's not a weak woman, but would be a strong, gun toting, enemy killing president if elected. She's not what this country needs, because she'd be more likely than anyone in the Democratic Party to lead us back into war or expand the current war.

    As far as the GWOT goes, no one seems to get the huge error Bush made in enlisting the planet to adopt an endless war on terrorists. Throughout our prior history, it had always been the policy of every American President (heck all world leaders really) to avoid at all costs making too much of any terrorist organization. One legitimizes a terrorist organization to it's potential recruits by making them into super villains. What, historically, has been the preferred method has been to go after the group when it does some act of terror, and round up those involved either jailing them and/or killing those that fight in the process. This, historically, proved to keep terrorist recruitment to the lowest of levels - only the most hardcore who would find some kind of terrorist group to join under any circumstances.

    However, Bush and his group have turned Al Qaeda into something as big as Nazi Germany (islamo-fascism) and Communism (citing domino therories that promise doom for all free peoples who fail to fight in this so-called epic struggle of good vs evil. They gave the terrorists a first victory when they gave us a color coded be afraid constantly system for terror alert since the primary goal of any terrorist, by definition, is to create a climate of fear. Bush created a perpetual climate of fear with his threat level assessment system.

    Bush and his team have spent the last 5 and a half years as bin Laden's most successful recruiter. Their inability to deal with Iraq: the insurgency, the sectarian violence, and terrorist tactics, has emboldened terrorists, made the US look weak and incompetent, and has led to a constant flow of new terrorist recruits at what is apparently a faster rate that the US can recruit soldiers.

    The more we make bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and terrorism/terrorists in generasl to be big news, to be a huge danger, and to be apparently successful, the more we aid and abet the enemy with our own tactics. That is, in large part, why continuing the fight in Iraq is senseless. The President says we have to keep fighting or we will embolden the terrorists to do more evil. Well, I say, the more we prove to the terrorists we are incapable of fighting them successfully (as Iraq prpoves on a daily basis), the more we embolden the enemy and put opurselves at danger and risk.

    Posted by Lennonist at 04/30/2007 @ 1:36pm

15. OR, AS PRONOUNCED BY GEORGE W. BUSH, "THE WAR ON TERRA"...

    End of discussion.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 04/30/2007 @ 2:18pm

16. I can sympathise with all of the candidates, what does war on a tactic mean? How does anyone make war on a method? This is another stupid, meaningless Bushism. How the hell do you answer it? You might as well make war on dirt. Except that you can actually grasp and move dirt.

    Posted by brantl at 04/30/2007 @ 4:03pm

17. Posted by BRANTL 04/30/2007 @ 4:03pm

    Idiotic term....but would favor somebody calling for a "War on....

    Poverty"?

    Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 4:46pm

18. how bout a jihad on terror...ism...?

    the struggle against terrorism, the war against AL QAEDA, and any who support or work with AL QAEDA.

    there...properly used terminology...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2007 @ 5:59pm

19. because AL QAEDA is really really really bad, and has managed to play us like a concert piano. they need to be rooted out and destroyed, but...saddam already had control of his slice of iraq...

    we need to stop following their road map to a new fundamentalist islamic millenium, or a new american century will be kind of pointless.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2007 @ 6:03pm

20. hey - flippy's advertising on the nation...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2007 @ 6:09pm

21. Notice how the Naderites always say "Democrats are as pro-war as Republicans". Yet, Democratic victory in 2006 was a "mandate" to end the war in seconds, not minutes. Democrats winning is an anti-war mandate? I thought Democrats were as pro-war as Republicans!!!

    Naderites lost to the Greens in 2004, the Greens kicked the stuffing out of Ralph Nader's breakaway party. Did the Green Candidate have significant policy differences with Ralph Nader? No - and Ralph Nader isnt trying to spoil the opposition to the Republicans - but even though Ralph Nader pretty much agreed with the Green Party candidate - he still ran against him and got fewer votes. Called the Greens "part of the problem", he did, in 2004.

    You know when the war could have been stopped? November 2000. Democrats voted against Republicans, and if Al Gore had won, THERE WOULD BE NO IRAQ WAR TODAY.

    Now, I know, I know, Democrats are as evil as Republicans, Democrat = Republican, Bush = Gore. I understand that Nader wants Gore to run for the Green nomination and he wants Bush to be his VP.

    Posted by conshame at 05/01/2007 @ 2:33pm

22. Rio Bravo - all you Conservative Republicans ever do is the same old shhit. If you dont support the idiot George Bush, youre with the terrorists, if you dont support the disaster in Iraq, youre with the terrorists.

    Like most Conservative Republicans who all you ever do is say, "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal, you support terrorists!" thinking its funny like a little brat: You have no intellectual capacity, none that you make apparent.

    If you would go to Baghdad and enjoy the free speech there, you would thereby slightly increse the average IQ of the human race. I really wish you would get a sign that says I Love Bush and just walk around Baghdad with it for as long as it takes.

    Posted by conshame at 05/01/2007 @ 2:40pm

23. "The Liberation of Iraq"

    Posted by conshame at 05/01/2007 @ 2:45pm

24. Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/01/2007 @ 2:18pm

    RIO, you mention the "leftwingnuts and Al Queda" who are so happy Democrats got the Congress, and I'm curious.....

    why didn't the "majority" (whom you MUST represent) simply keep voting the Republicans back in power and make Al Queda un-happy?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 05/01/2007 @ 2:55pm

25. First off, I'm not a Naderite, wouldn't vote for him if he was my only choice, but I sure agree with more of his positions than any Democrat.

    Secondly, Conshame, you suggest there is an error in logic to see Democrats as being prowar and yet as the public vote for Democrats in the last election as antiwar. I see Democrats as being as prowar as Republicans. It was a Democrat that got the US into WWI, WWII, and Korea; it was a Democrat who escalated Vietnam to horrific levels; it was a Democrat that sought to launch the Bay of Pigs invasion; a Democrat took us to Bosnia. Just because the public voted for Democrats to end the war does not mean the Democrats will actually do what the public wants them to do. And, every exit poll clearly indicated that the public did indeed vote for Democrats because the majority of the public (I assume you agree that is what a democracy is all about, following the desires of the majority) want the US out of Iraq ASAP. I can't help it that: 1) the two party system is a failure that does not give voters any real choice but rather only the cosmetic appearance of differences, 2) the public is generally too hoodwinked to see the forest for the trees and realize the only way a real change occurs is to go completely outside the system and bring in enbtirely new blood that does not take campaign money from sources that attach strings to the contributions.

    I never said that Democrats or Republicans are evil, I do not believe either is evil. I just disagree with them both. Disagreements between self and other-than-self do not imply evil is required to reside in other-than-self. At least not in the minds of thinking, considering, calm, rational, investigative individuals who come to their own conclusions rather than be told what to think and say by either side. Likewise, I do not equate Bush with Gore.

    Now, I would strongly appreciate it if you refrain from assuming who I vote for, who I support, what my views are, and what are the bases of my views. Because, you clearly have no clue into my mind, you have no clue into my voting, and you so badly miss-state my positions that one would think you don't even know how to read and comprehend English.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/01/2007 @ 2:57pm

26. Oh, and George Bush is, without a doubt, the least intelligent President we've ever had.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/01/2007 @ 2:58pm

27. HURRAY! REPUBLICANS VOTED BOTH TO PROLONG THE DISASTER IN IRAQ AND TO DENY FUNDS FOR TROOPS DURING A WAR - BOTH AT THE SAME TIME!

    STUPID BUSH HAD TO VETO, IT WAS HIS ONLY MOVE. SCREW YOU REPUBLICAN PARTY!!! THIS IS WONDERFUL!!!!

    Posted by conshame at 05/01/2007 @ 8:05pm

28. you know, in regard to those merc companies like blackwater, is not congress the branch of government responsible for issueing letters of marque and reprisal?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/01/2007 @ 10:20pm

29. Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/01/2007 @ 2:18pm

    al queda wants us to stay in iraq forever. it was all part of their grand strategy (they did read pnac...) maybe we should get out and provoke a thirty years war in iraq between iranian shia and sunni al queda...

    or let the saudis and friends (including mercenaries like haliburton hq'd in dubai) do the dirty work.

    sure...let iran get knee deep in iraq. have fun...maybe on day al queda will sneak a nuke into tehran instead of the us...

    to bad we were so obsessed with iraq when obl was traopped in afghanistan.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/01/2007 @ 10:26pm

30. let the saudis pay a merc army of filibusterers. i'm tired of it.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/01/2007 @ 10:29pm

31. March of the Parrots

    Rice: U.S. Progressing in War on Terror Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007 at 6:53am

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice claimed "considerable progress" in the global fight against terrorism as she prepared Tuesday to ask skeptical Arab governments to do more and to underwrite democracy in Iraq.

    "There's been some real progress on some fronts and in other places the terrorists have continued to challenge democratic governments," Rice said when asked about a State Department report showing terrorist attacks worldwide shot up more than 25 percent last year.

    "We'll continue to fight that war. We're making considerable progress," Rice said.

    Awwwwk....making progress. Making progress. Condi wants a cracker!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/02/2007 @ 12:34pm

32. Wait just a minute! Apparently the president was right. The terrorists have infiltrated our shores...

    "Man arrested for bomb at Texas abortion clinic" Updated: 8:16 p.m. ET April 27, 2007

    "AUSTIN, Texas - A 27-year-old Austin man was arrested on Friday and charged with placing an unexploded bomb containing some 2,000 nails outside an abortion clinic in the state's capital. The explosive device also included a propane tank and a mechanism "akin to a rocket," Austin Police Commander David Carter said."

    Oh, it was only an abortion clinic. Shit, those people got what's coming to them.

    Ain't it funny how some things just don't show up in the national news, or for that matter on the lips of the president, the way other events do?

    Posted by Chris C at 05/02/2007 @ 1:48pm

33. Rio Bravo aka Tokyo Rose-I see your repeating jihadist propaganda like the good Tokyo Rose that you are.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/03/2007 @ 2:20pm

34. Bravo!

    This is 1 of the 4 points in our nationwide honk4peace.org [honk4peace.org] campaign as qualifications of a peace candidate.

    The other 3 are Iraq, Iran & wars of aggression.

    Bill Scheurer

    www.honk4peace.org [honk4peace.org]

    Posted by wcscheurer at 05/03/2007 @ 6:32pm