Matthew Yglesias: Missing: National Security

« Do We Need A New Term? | Main | Thompson on Food Supply »

Missing: National Security

The Nation's post-election forum is an excellent example of my new hobbyhorse -- liberals just not caring much one way or the other about national security. If it were really the case that there was some militantly dovish leftwing base out there preventing Democrats from adopting a better line on foreign policy, it would be represented here. And, indeed, just as a leftwing base should, various contributors advise the Democrats to hold the line -- or move further left -- on this or that topic. But even though several contributors note that national security played a key role in John Kerry's defeat, only one contributor has anything to say at all about how to deal with that, a joking suggestion that Kerry should have promised to kill terrorists with his bare hands.

But if there's anything that left-of-center people of different stripes ought to be able to agree on it's that this won't do as a political strategy. Even if you don't think the "war on terror" should be a big deal, there's no denying that, in the eyes of the voters, it is a big deal, so Democrats need to say something about it. A lot of people on the left seem to have decided that the Cold War was exceptional and that the elections of 1992-2000 represent the norm and, therefore, national security will drop off the agenda soon enough. This seems clearly wrong. National security was a key campaign issue from 1988 all the way back to 1936, at least. The elections of 1916 and 1920 turned largely on foreign policy, and the question of imperialism factored heavily in the William Jennings Bryan campaigns around the turn of the century. As America has emerged throughout the 20th century as a major world power, the question of what to do with that power has usually been on the agenda and will pop up frequently as a voting issue for the foreseeable future.

December 5, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1496047

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Missing: National Security:

» Liberalism and Terror....A Followup from Political Animal
LIBERALISM AND TERROR....A FOLLOWUP....I want to follow up a bit on my response to Peter Beinart's TNR article, "A Fighting Faith." As you recall, Beinart argued that liberals need to get serious about terrorism and purge the MoveOn/Michael Moore wing... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 5, 2004 10:01:53 PM

Tracked on Dec 6, 2004 1:20:31 AM

» Liberals discussing foriegn policy from Asymmetrical Information
Or actually, liberals discussing why liberals should be discussing foreign policy. Two great posts from Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias.... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 6, 2004 11:40:52 AM

» Afghanistan and terrorism: Atrios is right from Majikthise
A lot of people seem to think that Democrats ought to "get serious about national security." Before this goes any further, let's be explicit about what "seriousness" and "national security" really mean in this context. I get the sense that [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 6, 2004 6:49:30 PM

» Eureka! from The Indepundit
MATTHEW YGLESIAS acknowledges the real reason Democrats did so dismally at the polls last month: Even if you don't think the "war on terror" should be a big deal, there's no denying that, in the eyes of the voters, it... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 7, 2004 2:20:21 PM

Tracked on Dec 7, 2004 4:42:13 PM

» My liberal partisan hackery continues unabated from The Asylum
Despite heated criticism that I should desist from linking to liberals because some feel they provide false information, I must respectfully disagree and bravely continue my endeavors. After all, trolls really aren't effective about making you back dow... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 10, 2004 2:52:47 PM

Comments

Reading your post alone, I would think that Kerry had said that National Security was not a big deal and that Kerry had discussed National Security at all. However, I know this was just the reverse.

Therefore, either you have drunk some kool-aid, or your post was weak, or you have fallen for the logical fallacy that (as others have pointed out), just because someone says 2+2=6, the fair and balanced and strategic argument must therefore be 2+2=5.

It just may be the case that Dems are strong on defense but weak on how to deal with smears and media bias. That's not a case for getting even stronger on defense, that's not a case for claiming Dems said nothing about defense. That's a case for getting better about smears and media bias.

Posted by: jerry | Dec 5, 2004 12:15:37 PM

(I posted this on the wrong entry)

Matthew,

I read through these pithy essays and was reminded of www.sorryeverybody.com. The first instinct after Bush won reelection, was for many Kerry supporters to apologize to Europe. Seriously, these people at the nation, Chomsky, Rorty, Medea Benjamin etc.. begin with the presumption that American hegemony must be challenged and ends up as a rationalized solidarity with the most regressive political currents on the planet. Naomi Klein wanted to bring Najaf to New York, the beheaders of Fallujah are a "resistance" or no different than the Iraqi people. The most important goal for the left should be to end the occupation. Who can or should take any of this seriously? The main reason I voted for Bush was because these people were the vaunted base that Mary Beth Cahill and the other softies sought to energize on November 2. Let them vote for Nader, attend conferences on Cuban socialism in Havana, but just make sure the campaign manager for the Democratic candidate in 2008 does not answer their phone calls. Like the wire analysis too.

Posted by: Eli Lake | Dec 5, 2004 12:17:11 PM

The Nation's post-election forum is an excellent example of my new hobbyhorse -- liberals just not caring much one way or the other about national security.

Quick, Matt--what was the last war we fought to keep America safe?

When you say 'national security,' you're using the American jingoist euphemism for 'ass-kicking.' So yes, many of us lefties have little patience for expansionism. Don't expect us to buy into your abuse of the term 'security,' though.

Posted by: bobo brooks | Dec 5, 2004 12:25:28 PM

bobo brooks,

For those who think the toppling of America's former client in Iraq is American jingoism or expansionism, please leave the democratic party. I eagerly await a civil war between real progressives and the apologists for authoritarians and am hoping the Hitchensians win. ANSWER, Ramsey Clark, Medea Benjamin, Chomsky, Michael Moore, no war for oil bumper stickers, sorryeverybody.com have no place in a serious national party. Leave now.

Posted by: Eli Lake | Dec 5, 2004 12:32:41 PM

Wow, Eli Lake of Campus Watch fame enters the fray. Just a pity that he's just a sore looser.
He and is alter alias on this blog.

Remember, most democrats, including MY here, supported the Iraq war. And the Democrats lost the elections. Next time choose right, instead of making your misstakes worse.

Posted by: Duh | Dec 5, 2004 12:42:59 PM

It's certainly a dilemma. Based on current Bush/Repug policies and rhetoric,
we have these two major issues:

"National security" = killing and torturing Arabs, insulting other
foreigners = xenophobia

"Moral values" = theocracy and homophobia

The difficulty for Democrats seems to
be that a very large portion of the
electorate is actually in favor of
torturing Arabs and bashing gays; and
when Bush says "national security" and
"moral values", they know that's what
he means.

Maybe we can come up with some rhetoric
about "American values" = no torture,
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" = let gays be gays,
"Speak softly and carry a big stick".
This might move a few percent at the
margin, but the masses who approve of
torture just can't be reached.

Posted by: Richard Cownie | Dec 5, 2004 12:46:33 PM

Seriously, these people at the nation, Chomsky, Rorty, Medea Benjamin etc.. begin with the presumption that American hegemony must be challenged and ends up as a rationalized solidarity with the most regressive political currents on the planet.

But the Bushies are one of the most regressive political currents on the planet. And the most powerful one by far. And you end up 'as a rationalized solidarity' with it.

So, what's your point? Or is this just rhetoric with no meaning whatsoever?

Posted by: abb1 | Dec 5, 2004 12:56:54 PM

Support out troops!

Or something.

Posted by: Sven | Dec 5, 2004 1:02:32 PM

For those who think the toppling of America's former client in Iraq is American jingoism or expansionism, please leave the democratic party.

Uh-huh.

Look, ass-kicking is going to happen whether I think it's right or wrong. I would really, really like it, though, if people would call it 'ass-kicking' or 'domination' instead of national security. These wars--every single one since probably WWII--are perhaps in our national interest, but not about actually protecting us. (Except Afghanistan.)

MY is asserting the commonly-held American doctrine that it's okay for us to decide how the world should look, and to apply as much force as we want in order to make it so. He is also calling it national security, which it is not.

We've fought a shitload of wars over the last few decades; I don't feel particularly safer.

So say what you mean, Matt--you hate liberals who aren't cool and macho about blowing shit up, like you are. It's a perfectly defensible position without calling it a phony name.

Posted by: bobo brooks | Dec 5, 2004 1:07:26 PM

So say what you mean, Matt--you hate liberals who aren't cool and macho about blowing shit up, like you are. It's a perfectly defensible position without calling it a phony name.

He won't. Phoniness is the main feature of a 'liberal hawk'. They are cool and macho about blowing shit up, but the words 'freedom' and 'democracy' have to appear in every paragraph, otherwise they lose their appetite and may even become sick and have to take aspirin and warm chicken broth for a while. Fortunately it's not life-threatening.

Posted by: abb1 | Dec 5, 2004 1:30:10 PM

I am what might be considered a liberal hawk. I don't think it's "cool and macho," just a recognition that there is an appropriate time and place to use force. It is not the case that I therefore think every use of force is justified or useful.

Consider Iraq. We now know that we were misled about its capabilities and therefore the level of threat that it posed. But we also know that one reason Saddam did not simply come clean about his WMD was that he didn't believe that we would actually use force. Our threat of force was not credible, in his eyes, which paradoxically made the use of force necessary.

But. As a liberal hawk, I disagree with the invasion of Iraq as an exercise in "fostering democracy," not because I am against democracy, but because it leaves us strategically exposed.

I am none too pleased with the incompetence of those running the war, either.

My main objection is not the use of force, but that the injudicious way force has been used has made us less safe and militarily weaker in fundamental ways, as well as the diminishment of our moral authority (yes, we did have that) that has accompanied it.

Posted by: Kiril | Dec 5, 2004 2:32:22 PM

"So say what you mean, Matt--you hate liberals who aren't cool and macho about blowing shit up, like you are."

So lets hypothetically assume that Democrats will remain powerless domestically if we do not satisfy the atavistic urges of Matthew and the Red State Cro-Magnons to blow shit up. You won't accept that hypothetical, but the evidence is against you.

I would cheerfully sacrifice x American lives and 100x non-American lives, in pure cynicism, to ensure that SS survives and gays are treated as human beings. I can come up with acceptable wag-the-dog targets, and believe the liberal agenda is worth the cost.

Libs are looking at a lousy 2% swing in Ohio, and thinking that gets them anything. It gets them nothing. They need 10-20%, and only blood and iron will get them there.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 5, 2004 2:39:46 PM

No, I accept the hypo. Americans like killing foreigners, no doubt about it; Democrats need to be able to pander to bloodlust. But let's not kid ourselves by pretending that we are actually being all principled and shit by "focusing on national security."

I am what might be considered a liberal hawk. I don't think it's "cool and macho," just a recognition that there is an appropriate time and place to use force.

Over the last forty years, we have fought in Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Haiti, Lebanon, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and twice in Iraq. (And doubtless others that I've forgotten.)

Were ALL of those proper times and places? I think all but one or two of them shouldn't have been fought; does that mean that I don't think that there is EVER an appropriate time and place? No. However, I hold onto the crazy notion that the right time and place is a. when you're threatened, and b. where the threat comes from. It's not "where you could gain some cool stuff rather than go through difficult negotiations," and "wherever the hell you want."

Different people set their thresholds at different spots. The higher you set your threshold, the fewer wars you fight. How could that possibly mean that you are less serious about national security? It just means that your reaction, when pondering war, is less pro-war than somebody else.

Matt would know these things if he weren't being all macho and cool about blowing shit up.

Posted by: bobo brooks | Dec 5, 2004 3:12:45 PM

Kiril tells us "Saddam did not simply come clean about his WMD" because our threat wasn't convincing.

In reality, Saddam gave an inventory of his WMD. He invited inspectors in. He attempted to arrange meetings with the U.S. to make further concessions. The record is plain- the U.S. had an agenda for war and brushed aside efforts to prevent it.

I've lived with this militaristic "liberal" doubletalk for many years and I'm pretty sure it hasn't made me any safer.

As for Matt's idea that liberals don't care about national security, the major and basically only industries around me are the nuclear subbase, the shipyard, Fort Lewis, and McChord AFB. These people voted for Kerry and returned Norm Dicks (D) with 80% of the vote. I'm sure some of them would have creative ideas about where Matt could shove it.

It is common for an empire in decline to end up with a serious overstock of weaponry and soldiers who do nothing to increase their security. Why Matt thinks that couldn't happen to us, with our remaining inventory of 12,000 nuclear weapons, is a mystery.

Posted by: serial catowner | Dec 5, 2004 3:12:48 PM

Lol, I like this one.

Posted by: abb1 | Dec 5, 2004 3:22:26 PM

"Lol, I like this one."

I was dead serious. After thirty years of Democrats not being able to perform as "Commander Codpiece"....Reagan and Bush are lousy warriors, but they can look the part....in order to get creds back on National Security, a bombing of Kosovo or action in Somalia ain't gonna hack it. We need a hard-core Democratic killing machine.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 5, 2004 3:30:03 PM

So, bob, which wag the dog targets come first? I think the best one would probably be Cuba.

The invasion would practically pay for itself from cigar revenues. And I'm sure that given the awesome potency of the American military, we could pull it off with, oh, 2,000 troops, tops. And the Cubans would be totally fucking stoked, too.

It's too bad Jorge Mas Canosa died; it would have been nice to have a prominent exile to put in charge once we took over.

Posted by: bobo brooks | Dec 5, 2004 3:38:38 PM

We need a hard-core Democratic killing machine.

Well, it's not so much the killings it's the attitude that counts, of course. Liberals can't compete in this; they just can't compete, period.

They'll drop the Big One and then spend years reflecting, apologizing and explaining how it was the right thing to do, and it'll look pathetic, because there is really nothing to reflect on.

Alan Dershowitz was the first one to propose legalizing torture, yet he looks like a goddamm wimp with his pathetic sterile needles under the fingernails, while the Republicans denying that sodomizing young boys with broom handles constitute torture look tough and strong.

You just can't fake it, no way jose.

Posted by: abb1 | Dec 5, 2004 3:55:19 PM

serial catowner - Mr. Blix disagrees with you about the level of Saddam's cooperation. This, of course, does not mean that simultaneously the Bush administration wasn't itching for war and doing everything in its power to convince us that it was necessary.

Posted by: Kiril | Dec 5, 2004 4:03:41 PM

I agree with you Matt, but you're probably wasting your breath (see previous threads on this subject for more about that.) A majority of liberals today a) simply don't believe that Islamist terrorism is a serious threat to America and b) would rather piss away the new deal, great society, and cultural liberalization of the 1960s than support the promotion of democracy in the Arab world, which is to say that a majority of liberals today are morally, strategically, and politically wrong.

What's truly grotesque is that more than a few of these folks would rather throw women and gays an free speech over the side in a vain attempt to court "values" voters rather than vigorously oppose religious tyranny in the Arab and broader Muslim world, and court the broad middle of the electorate. Apart from the moral bankruptcy of selling out the Democratic Party to American theocrats and appeasing Islamo-fascists, one wonders if these genuises have thought through even the political implications of their favored policies...Who would vote for a culturally conservative liberal internationalist Democratic Party? All those fundies down in Alabama still pissed off that Bush didn't get UN approval before invading Iraq? Please.

Posted by: Scoop Democrat | Dec 5, 2004 5:48:10 PM

PS There was a time when the Nation magazine referred to Senator Taft as an "appeaser of Stalin" for not supporting a vigorous policy of containment against the Soviet Empire. Those days are long, long gone.

Posted by: Scoop Democrat | Dec 5, 2004 5:54:15 PM

I don't know anybody who says terrorism is "no big deal". That sounds like a hatchet job engineered to characterize opponents of the Iraq War as negligent.

Where the democrats have fallen down is in not pressing harder on the fundamental assumption that the Iraq War has nothing -- and I mean nothing -- to do with the war on terror. The democrats need to re-frame the issue. What's needed is a smart approach based on accurate intelligence, good espionage, forceful diplomacy, and alliances, with reduced reliance on military occupations and the US Army in general.

Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Dec 5, 2004 7:34:15 PM

"What's needed is a smart approach based on accurate intelligence, good espionage, forceful diplomacy, and alliances, with reduced reliance on military occupations and the US Army in general."

Does this include alliances with the House of Saud, Egypt, and Pakistan? As long as America continues to enable the repressive status quo in the Arab and Muslim world, everytime the Saudi or Egyptian security services with the aid of the CIA apprehends or kills some terrorist on Saudi or Egyptian soil the people of the Arab world hate us just a little bit more. We would have far more latitude with the people of Saudi Arabia to engage in these types of actions if America was engaged in a Manhattan Project on energy independence, and was actively pressuring the House of Saud into political, educational and economic reform. We would have far more latitude with the people of Egypt to engage in these types of actions if America was actively seeking a fair and equitable peace between Israel and Palestine and pressuring Mubarak into political, educational, and economic reforms. In general we would have far more latitude with the people of the Muslim to engage in these types of operations if we were atively and publically pressuring every dictator from Libya to Uzbekistan into political, economic, and educational reforms.

Posted by: Scoop Democrat | Dec 5, 2004 8:08:35 PM

In general we would have far more latitude with the people of the Muslim to engage in these types of operations if we were atively and publically pressuring every dictator from Libya to Uzbekistan into political, economic, and educational reforms.

Scoop, surprisingly I find I'm with you on every point you make about reforming our alliances. We've made progress!

Unfortunately, just about every diplomatic, intelligence, foreign aid, and (certainly) military resource at our disposal is busy fighting a heavily-armed resistance in Iraq, one that has nothing to do with apprehending international terrorists intent on doing us harm outside the borders of Iraq. And please do not revive some kind of flypaper theory about fighting them there rather than the streets of NYC -- I reject that argument out of hand.

Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Dec 5, 2004 8:18:02 PM

"Unfortunately, just about every diplomatic, intelligence, foreign aid, and (certainly) military resource at our disposal is busy fighting a heavily-armed resistance in Iraq, one that has nothing to do with apprehending international terrorists intent on doing us harm outside the borders of Iraq."

Progress, indeed. I differ only to the extent that democracy simply could not take root anywhere in the Arab mideast until Saddam was gone, and one suspects that democracy cannot take root in the Arab mideast until the situation is at least stabilized in Iraq.

Posted by: Scoop Democrat | Dec 5, 2004 8:37:32 PM

I don't understand the argument about Saddam. Working on the Israeli-Palestinian problem could've borne fruit. Libya was already playing ball. Bush hasn't even *tried* to do anything about the Saudis. And worse, we've now proven that our superior military can be tied down in a quagmire.

I don't see democracy taking root while we're there, either, but you're an optimist and I'm not. Quite the conundrum.

Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Dec 5, 2004 9:13:34 PM

"I don't understand the argument about Saddam."

I don't believe he was ever a threat to the US or the west generally, but I do believe he was a threat to regional stability, and to the development of regional democracy.

"I don't see democracy taking root while we're there, either, but you're an optimist and I'm not."

I supported the Iraq war because I believed the development of democracy in the Arab world the only way ultimately to eliminate the threat of radical Islamist terrorism against the US, and because that end couldn't be achieved without regime change in Iraq. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the democratization of Iraq will succeed. To me it still looks to be a 50/50 situation, that it could go either way. What I'm saying in a sense is that a radical and risky treatment was in my estimation the only possible cure, but that doesn't mean that radical and risky treatment was or is going to succeed. Just because massive chemotherapy is the only hope for curing a particular cancer doesn't mean that that cancer won't ultimately triumph.

I differ from Beinart and I guess others who believe that America is likely to continue with democracy promotion in the Arab and broader Muslim world even if Iraq becomes Vietnam the sequel. My reading of American history suggests otherwise. If that is the outcome I'm likely to become pessimistic not only about America's chances of successfully promoting democracy in the Arab world, but also of holding our own shit together. I wrote on another thread that while the promotion of democracy in the Arab world holds the potential of unifying the broad center of the American electorate, the failure of the war in Iraq (particularly if its combined with a serious economic downturn) holds the potential of blowing the red/blue divide in this country wide open, and the culture wars escalating into something worse. What I'm saying is that events over the next decade or two are likely to be more dramatic and perilous than most of us have experienced in our lifetimes (unless we're old enough to have lived through the 1930s and 40s.)

Posted by: Scoop Democrat | Dec 5, 2004 9:48:37 PM

What I'm saying is that events over the next decade or two are likely to be more dramatic and perilous than most of us have experienced in our lifetimes

Well I don't disagree with that.

It looks like it's the Bush plan for reforming the ME (if there truly is one) vs. America's economic endurance. On this note I think everyone should re-read Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. This is how empires collapse.

Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Dec 5, 2004 9:59:29 PM

"As America has emerged throughout the 20th century as a major world power, the question of what to do with that power has usually been on the agenda" Well, the answer is simple; you will do what everyone else has done before you, oppress those who are weaker than you and be surprised when they aren't thankful enough. Seriously, the challenge for the Democrats in this area is to present a foreign policy that is NOT aggressive and imperialistic to a population that (being normal humans) WANTS to be aggresive and imperialistic.

Posted by: Carlos | Dec 5, 2004 10:04:38 PM

Liberals underestimate the threat (which is why they don't want to talk about it), and generally have no idea what to do about it. Conservatives misunderstand the threat, and are making it much, much worse.

Its clear from the Pentagon's newly released report on America's failure to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world (http://www.sundayherald.com/46389) that there is no "battle for the soul of Islam" taking place globally (as we are told) between moderates and fundamentalists, but rather a broad-based Islamic revival that includes both moderates and fundamentalists, and which sees Islam as the unifying force in a struggle against American-backed tyrannies, and American influence generally in the Muslim world.

"Here's the money quote: "Muslims see what is happening as a “history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration … a renewal of the Muslim world …(which) has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents – of which radical fighters are only a small part”."

Anyone familiar with the history of anti-colonial movements around the world knows that a revival of the dominant religion oftens plays a critical, unifying role, and becomes inextricably linked to notions of national and ethnic liberation. Burma's multi-decade anti-colonial insurgency was not simply nationalist, for instance, but Buddhist nationalist, and rode the wave of a broad-based Buddhist revival in the country that included both moderate and fundamentalist elements. The same is true of animism in certain anti-colonial movements in Africa, and Vodun in Haiti.

America is engaged in a tragic fantasy that will cost it many thousand of lives and trillions of dollars. The only sane option left is the development of energy independence, political and military withdrawl from the Muslim world, and tightening of border security at home.

Posted by: Green Dem | Dec 6, 2004 1:43:04 AM

Yep, it's a dangerous world out there, and we need to defend ourselves against the people who want to come and take our wives and cars.

But even more dangerous are the people who DON'T want to come and take our wives and cars. You may scare us by wanting what we have, but you'll scare the bejeezess out of us by NOT wanting what we have.

Not a materialist? It's an affront to God and Nature! Rock my world!

And so the American concept of 'self-defense' mutates from defending what we have to defending against a world that wishes we would go home. To the Barricades! Person the Ramparts!

Or, at the very least, get a flag and wave it like crazy when the parade goes by. And don't forget the little yellow ribbon on your SUV.

Just don't talk about making fewer trips to the mall. There are limits to toughness.

Posted by: serial catowner | Dec 6, 2004 10:00:46 AM

Excellent comments from Green Dem.

I agree that there are many on the left who simply refuse to think seriously about foreign policy, and want to avoid the whole nasty topic of foreign aggression and threats to the US.

But in fact there are plenty on the left who have sophisticated, well-informed views about US foreign policy. The problem is many Democrats, of a more liberal imperialist bent, just don't *like* those views and don't want to listen to them. The liberal imperialists are moral fanatics, and the idea of curtailing the blowback-producing American Empire, and restricting the activities of the Department of Defense to, well, DEFENSE, are anathema to them. They are itching to use the historical gift of the massive US imperial weapon as a wish-fulfilling, world-purifying "values bomb" to spread neoliberal democracy around the globe, and are very frustrated that a significant number in their own party just don't want to do it.

Well, we fly-in-the-ointment anti-imperialist Democrats are not going away. So deal with it. The proper function of the national government is to offer protection to its citizens - not to satisfy the ideological cravings of influential minorities of its citizens, and not to protect the overseas financial interests of the few in such a way as to compromise the security of the many.

Far from ignoring 9/11 and putting our heads in the sand, the fact is many of us on the anti-imperialist side have our eyes wide open and are simply *furious* about 9/11, and blame our own government for the reckless endangerment of American citizens. That's not because we hold idealized, romantic views of the crazed murderers and their militant allies who carried out the operation. It's because for decades we have recognized that the Middle East is filled with those fanatical, violent crazies, and we have thus advocated devising a method of *getting out* of there. Yet our country has only deepened its addiction to Middle east oil, and intensified its self-defeating attachment to Israel.

And now the response of people like Beinart is to complicate the entanglements yet further. Enough! Why don't we take a lesson from some of the companies who have operated in the Middle East? When they reach a point where it is clear that they cannot offer their employees adequate security, they get out. They pull up the stakes and go home. Democrats might do well to offer the country a similar policy based on the self-interest of the vast majority of American citizens, not one based on the quixotic moral interests of only a few of its citizens.

Right now, we must back a broad, committed national effort to achieve energy independence, one that draws on the knowledge and energies of science, business and the whole citizenry to overhaul the way our economy works. Such an effort would be noble, practical and a tremendous potential source of national pride and unity. Our decendants will thank us for the effort and sacrifice the energy independence movement will require.

Posted by: Dan Kervick | Dec 6, 2004 10:04:34 AM

It's clear that security is always one of the key tasks in maintaining a republic, so it would be pretty silly if anyone thought it would go away as an issue as Matt suggests that Democrats are doing.

I think that in reality, Democrats have been working on the reasonable explanation that the hysteria over 9/11 will eventually dissipate and we can go back to a sane discussion about security. This has so far been a miscalculation, due in part by conscious efforts by the Bush administration to maintain the hysteria, but maybe more so just to the magnitude of the attack.

If you had asked me three years ago if things could get back to something like normal by now if there were no attacks on US soil in that time, I would have optimistically said yes. Obviously, I was completely wrong about that, and I'm starting to come to terms with the reason.

As much as 9/11 is a shock and an atrocity, there is no great mystery that something like it is possible. The vulnerabilities were all there. It had never occurred to me that airliners were poorly secured missiles that could be commandeered by a small, modestly funded group, but this had occurred to lots of people who make it their job to think about this. It was a catastrophic failure, but, like all catastrophic failures not a very likely one. Enough different components of US security failed at once that this could happen. It didn't strike me as evidence in itself that US security was woefully lax (though it might be) or that it was a sign of more to come (in fact, I though it would lead to better security though I wonder now).

I believe my reaction, as above, is the opinion of a tiny minority. In fact, most Americans believe somewhere deep down that we are different, that somehow we're always going to be immune to disaster. I think this explains the difference between US and Europe, which has had some endemic cases of terrorisms to deal with. The idea that the US is uniquely safe is founded in a mystical belief rather than a sound examination of what we can do to stay secure (though we can do a lot more than we were doing on 9/11). As long as Americans feel this way, the hysteria is not going to be shaken. I'm not even going to guess the appropriate political response to this fact, because I don't see a non-cynical one.

Posted by: Paul Callahan | Dec 6, 2004 11:09:45 AM

In fairness to Beinart and other liberal hawks I think their belief that America is fundamentally a different kind of western country, based more upon an idea than a particular ethnicity or religion, is not wholly inaccurate. As such, America can and has in the past been an effective exporter of liberal democracy in a way that European countries never were and probably could not be (France regarded Algeria as a province of "greater France," for instance, in much the same way that no small number of Israelis regard the West Bank and Gaza as parts of "Greater Israel," and as such Algerians and Palestenians would remain permanent second-class citizens) and at least in a few cases has successfully transformed tyrannies into democracies.

What this analysis ignores though with respect to the Arab world is perhaps more than anything else the confidence gap. America has been effectively propping up corrupt, brutal Arab dictatorships for decades, while speaking the language of freedom and democracy. So to that extent Mr. Bush's mideast democracy initiative, which appears to be little more than talk, talk, talk, seems to most Arabs simply more of the same. And the war in Iraq seems to them merely a cynical extension of American domestic politics.

At some point the wife of the serial adulterer, despite whatever goodness he may have in his heart and his pleas that "this time it'll different," simply loses confidence in her husband and finally feels empowered enough to seek a divorce. Whatever window it seems that might have been open after 9/11 to change course in the Arab world may well now be closed, and for good. What is now gathering steam in the Arab world, uniting moderate Muslims and militants, looks to this American like a classic anti-imperialist movement, bent on driving the foreign power from the region.

Posted by: Green Dem | Dec 6, 2004 4:00:18 PM

Matt,

Thank you for writing this. You've just illustrated why I have voted for Democrats to various local, state, and national offices -- but never as Commander-in-Chief. Forget the so-called "values" issues. If the Democratic Party can regain the trust of the American people on national security, they will regain both houses of Congress, and the White House.

Yes, it's just that simple.

Posted by: SMASH | Dec 7, 2004 2:25:38 PM

Matthew,
I read your well written article. I could detect your general concern about the dilemma Democrats face concerning their apparent lack of national security policy issues. After reading the comments that it generated from people who probably are voting Democrat, it must just break your heart.

Posted by: AllenS | Dec 8, 2004 6:37:54 AM

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Get with the program kids.

Posted by: GhostofJFK | Dec 8, 2004 8:45:05 AM

please can you give me some ghanaian porn sites

Posted by: samuel | Sep 21, 2006 11:52:41 AM