Bill Nienhuis of Pundit Guy takes an axe to the Democratic “plan” on national security. Once again, the Democrats demonstrate quite clearly why they are rightly viewed as the party of weakness on national security. As Nienhuis observes:
The Democrats fundamentally misunderstand the war on terror. To them, terrorism is encapsulated in one person – Osama bin Laden. By promising to find and kill bin Laden, the Democrats push the notion that if you get rid of the man, you rid the world of terrorism. Of course, this position falls flat on its face when you consider there are terrorist cells throughout the world who disagree with bin Laden and act unilaterally even though they consider themselves members of al-Qaeda. Just consider Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. There are global terrorist factions who rally around and take orders from this man. What are the Democrats going to do when Zarqawi replaces bin Laden?
Removing bin Laden is a one trick pony approach to fighting terrorism. It’s a law enforcement solution which might work if we’re talking about cleaning up a neighborhood by taking out the guy who runs the crack house down the street. Unfortunately for the Democrats, terrorism can’t be localized like this. There are other neighborhoods and thousands of guys who run crack houses. There are other countries and a million terrorists.
The Democratic plan is about winning the war, it’s about going home – the same as their plans on Iraq. They believe that if we can just get rid of Osama, then the war’s over and they can quickly change their message and everyone can return to the nice world of September 10. The oft-repeated saying that the Democrats are the September 10 Party isn’t all that far from the truth.
As nice as it would be to have Osama burning in the deepest pits of Hell, what does that accomplish? Would al-Qaeda suddenly say “Gee, I guess this whole jihad thing doesn’t work out. Let’s all go back to Saudi Arabia and grow dates.”? Would it mean that their quest to obtain weapons of mass destruction would magically end? The answer, and the obvious answer at that, is of course not.
For all President Bush’s many flaws, he understand we’re in a long war. A war that requires action on many fronts. A war that we have no option but to win. Just getting rid of Osama is entirely insufficient and may even be counterproductive. We have to undermine the ideology of Islamic extremism at its core – and that means slowly undermining the autocratic regimes that created it in the first place. That won’t be achieved by capturing one man.
For the Democrats, it’s all about changing the subject – which is precisely why they are phenomenally clueless on issues of national security. If this is the best the Democrats can come up with in regards to one of the most critical issues of our time, it’s clear they simply can’t lead.
Bin Laden is a revered figurehead, and also a fundamental source of money and strategic planning for al-Qaida. Getting rid him should be a priority….like it was for Bush at least for a few days following 9-11. To suggest that capturing him would be much adieu about nothing speaks to why your party has taken such a big hit on national security capabilities in public opinion polls.
Bin Laden would still be a revered figurehead, and being a shahid (martyr) would make him even more powerful. Bin Laden’s fortune has been spent, as his family long since cut him off. Al-Qaeada’s funds come mainly from Islamic charities that funnel money from terrorism. His death would have zero effect on funding, and might even increase it. Finally, bin Laden is stuck in the Hindu Kush. He can’t communicate via electronic means, only by courier. He isn’t in charge of planning for al-Qaeda because it takes days to reach him.
Getting rid of bin Laden won’t end the war. It won’t change anything. It’s just posturing from the Democrats – and exactly what is their plan for capturing him? Even if you put 500,000 troops along the Afghan/Pakistan border, the chances of grabbing bin Laden are remote as hell. Unless the Democrats would like to suggest nuking the entire Hindu Kush into a glass parking lot, they should know that saying that we should capture bin Laden and doing it are two entirely different things.
True, but neither party gets high marks. W and his neocon gang (not to mention the doofuses in power in Scandinavia and Britain) operate from an equally flawed premise: that Islam is a “religion of peace” that has been hijacked (hijihadacked?) by a few extremists. In this view, the problem is “terrorists.”
Wrong. The problem is Islam. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but virtually all agree in principle with the goals of the terrorists: to bring the world under Sharia law and eliminate or dhimmify every non-Muslim. Thus we keep trying to appease the Muslim world while fighting its vanguard. It’s as though, in World War II, we fought the German army but kept telling the German people that we had no quarrel with Nazism; it was just that extremist Hitler who was getting up our nose.
No, we can’t (and shouldn’t) fight a war against Islam; but we can (and should) absolutely stand up to its political demands, everywhere, always. W and the Liberal Establishment are as clueless on that score as the Democrats.
Jay, it sounds as if you want Osama bin Laden to stay alive. Sensible people aren’t gonna take seriously your criticism of Democratic weakness on foreign policy if your approach is “amnesty” for the architect of the 9-11 attacks.
The ideal place for Bin Laden is alive, but harried. Chased, unable to do more than keep a bit ahead of his pursuers–even better if we let it be known that getting him isn’t that important.
Finding Saddam in his spider hole was infinately better than killing him–unless we did it outright, in the first wave of battle. Saddam has been rendered foolish.
We need to do the same with Bin Laden. Incosequentiality is worse than death.
Jack nails it very nicely.