Decision ‘08

If It’s Unfair To Call The Democrats Weak On Defense…

…and it is, because it’s a broad generalization that borders on a smear, it’s not at all unfair to take individual Democrats to account for such weakness. I present to you one John Edwards:

The U.S.-led war on terrorism is “a bumper sticker, not a plan” that has weakened Washington’s global standing, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said on Wednesday as he unveiled his defense policy plans.

In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards urged the U.S. Congress to use its funding power to force an immediate pullout of up to 50,000 U.S. combat troops from Iraq, then a full withdrawal within a year.

Edwards, who was the Democratic Party’s vice presidential candidate in 2004, said as president he would close the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, restore the ability of detainees to take legal action against unlawful imprisonment and ban torture.

“The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan,” Edwards said. “It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world.”

“By framing this as a ‘war,’ we have walked straight into the trap that the terrorists have set — that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam,” said the former senator from North Carolina.

Hmmm…I feel safer already, don’t you?

Let’s see, framing this as a ‘war’. Well, I guess some idiotic people might think blowing up the World Trade Center with 3,000 Americans buried in the rubble is a ‘war’-type activity.

Too bad we don’t have the sophistication Edwards brings to the table. I wonder if FDR caught flack for framing Pearl Harbor as an act of ‘war’?…

33 Responses to “If It’s Unfair To Call The Democrats Weak On Defense…”

1 Scott Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Nice to have you back Mark.

Don’t you think that a better question would have been whether FDR would have caught flack for framing Pearl Harbor as a “war on bombing” or “war on surprise attacks.” I think that he would have received considerable flack!

You have to admit though, it’s been a great slogan for a long time. It was the gift that keept giving. Five years, three election cycles, have been very successful for him and the Republicans.
2 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Edwards said: “The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics”. Now, I remember President Bush’s speech to that joint Congressional Session on September 15, 2001, I believe it was, and it was no slogan to say we demanded the Taliban give up Al Qaeda or prepare to be attacked. It was no slogan that we destroyed those training camps and removed that odious regime. It was no slogan that has Bin Laden hiding in the mountains in Aghanistan/Pakistan. It was no slogan…

But you get the picture. Edwards is not a lightweight, he’s a featherweight…
3 Scott Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Do you mean to say that you interpret Edwards statement to mean that pursuing the Taliban and Al Qaeda was only a slogan? That he was against that?

Why are you name calling?
4 Jojo Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
He’s right that “War On Terror” is a slogan, and not really a good description of what the US is doing. Hamas in the Middle East, ETA in Spain, the IRA in Northern Ireland, etc are all terrorist organisations, but few would suggest that the going after those organisations would be a good response to September 11.

Spporters of the Bush policy view Iraq as part of the wider “War On Terror”. Those on the other side think that Al-Qaeda was a separate threat from Iraq, which is in turn separate from Iran, North Korea etc. That’s the distinction that Edwards is drawing. Of course September 11 was a hostile act, but what Edwards is saying is that September 11 wasn’t perpetrated by every enemy under the sun, but rather by a distinct entity based primarily from Afghanistan.
5 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Umm, hmmm…well, let’s continue with Edwards’ statement, shall we?

“By framing this as a ‘war,’ we have walked straight into the trap that the terrorists have set ”

Who framed this as a war, us or the people that attacked us? What is the alternative to framing this as a ‘war’?

You charitably credit Edwards with only being against the enemy chosen (broadly ‘terror’), but he plainly says he’s against the ‘war’ part, as well…
6 Andy Vance Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Aw what the heck. I’ll pile on. Mark, you’re trying to have it both ways.

Edwards is declaiming against using the label ‘war’ for whatever counterterrorism effort we’re presently engaged in. Yes, there was a war in Afghanistan. There is a war in Iraq.

There was a war against the Imperial Government of Japan. There was no war against Fascism.

There was no, and is no, war on terror. The phrase was deliberately constructed to elide distinctions and muddle discussion - i.e., to deceive - just like “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

Wars are waged against a distinct and defined enemy. And no, “Islamic extremists” doesn’t cut it (there are still Nazis in the world, yet you wouldn’t claim the war against Germany never ended). When that enemy concedes, collapses or is otherwise no longer able to carry on the fight, the war is kaput.

One might get away with describing a “war against al Qaeda,” but even that term has been stretched beyond recognition.
7 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
‘Weapons of mass destruction” is not a phrase chosen by the Bush administration - it is an internationally accepted designation for chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It has a quite distinct and well understood meaning.
8 Scott Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
the trap that the terrorist have set …”— that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam,”

You are selectively quoting out of your own origninal quote.

I can say this because I’m not an elected official, Bin Laden has won this round (He lost the one in Afganistan, though is staging a comeback thanks to our Iraq distraction). He wanted to sucker us into a conflict that we cannot win…. well you and the president (along with the Congress who gave him enough backing, Edwards included) were the perfect marks (no pun intended). My guess is that he couldn’t have even imagined it being this successful. Basically everyone admits that we are in a mess that doesn’t benefit us, doesn’t benefit Iraq, and only benefits Al Qaeda. Bin Laden doesn’t want us to leave, he wants us to continue to bleed soldiers, money, and confidence while he uses our presence to recruit more followers and killers. Bush responds with slogans, fear mongering, stay the course, and surging. Edwards wants to reasses and reframe the issue so that we can finally have some success…so you turn off your brain and call him names.
9 Andy Vance Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Oh bullsmack, Mark. It was too “chosen by” the Bushies (I assume you meant to say created by) because there is no accepted standard definition.
The U.S. Army considers high explosives to be WMD.

More importantly, it was chosen because it elides distinctions. When one says “there’s no doubt” X has WMD, when the lack of doubt didn’t include to nuclear weapons, that’s flat-out deception.
10 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Yes, the brilliant strategist bin Laden…and the evil dunce George Bush. It’s so simple…

The truth is, as James Fallows noted in a recent Atlantic Monthly (September 2006, if you want to verify) after interviewing 60 experts of every nationality and persuasion, is that the war thus far has been disastrous for bin Laden. I quote:

“…[T]he overall prospect looks better than many Americans believe, and better than nearly all political rhetoric asserts. The essence of the change is this: because of al-Qaeda’s own mistakes, and because of the things the United States and its allies have done right, al-Qaeda’s ability to inflict direct damage in America or on Americans has been sharply reduced.”

Now, Fallows goes on to assert that we can hurt ourselves in overreacting to al-Qaeda, and I suppose this is the point the not-very-bright Edwards was trying to get across. But instead of reasonably laying forth his argument, he accused the current president, the man whose historic task it was to respond to the worst attack ever on American shores, with empty sloganeering in the cause of a trumped-up war.

And you think I’m being unreasonable here…
11 JB Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Way to go Mark. You were gone so long this turned into a Lefty site.
12 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Andy, bullsmack yourself. WMDs is a well-understood term far predating the Bush administration:

The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons. There is controversy over when the term was first used, either in 1937 (in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment) or in 1945 (with reference to nuclear weapons). Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The phrase entered widespread popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq.

At worst, then, you can claim that Bush brought to public consciousness a term in use since 1937…
13 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 pm
As to a ’standard’ definition, I’ll stick with NBC and ‘add’ radiological, as Wikipedia did, but I admit that’s a personal preference. Still, there was no doubt what Bush meant when he spoke of Saddam’s WMDs. And there is also no doubt that we didn’t find the WMD stockpiles, as I’ve freely admitted on dozens of occasions…
14 Andy Vance Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
well-understood term far predating the Bush administration

Yes, exactly! Using the term to deceive depends on the term being “well-understood” and widely used. Otherwise, one would have to explain precisely what one was referring to.

When a Bushie said “WMD,” the audience assumed they meant chemical, biological AND nuclear. That makes the bait-and-switch possible: talk about evidence for chemical, but use the term WMD, and the audience will think you’re referring to all three. But you maintain plausible deniability, because you never said “nuclear.”

The Bushies are absolute masters at this tactic. Take a look at this humorous treatment of the “imminent” shell game.

And if you ever have the time, ask this perfesser about enthymatic argumentation.

If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!
15 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I don’t want to wade into this WMD discussion, but I don’t read anything either disingenuous or obviously incorrect in Edwards’ statements. The phrase “war on terror” is fundamentally a bumper sticker - it, like “war on drugs” or “war on poverty” quite simply CAN’T mean anything. Whether we’ve walked into a trap or not is open to debate, but I don’t buy your claim that it’s obviously false any more than I buy his that it’s obviously true. Sorting out what exactly we’ve done the last six years is something we aren’t going to have a good handle on for a while yet, I imagine, but nothing Edwards is saying is either insane or “weak”. If you don’t think our “war on terror” can be framed as a war against Islam and used by al Qaeda to recruit new members, then you probably aren’t paying attention.
16 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
The phrase “war on terror” would indeed be a bumper sticker if that was all it entailed - a phrase. But there have been vigorous military activities not only in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, Somalia, the Phillipines, Iraq, and many other small operations that we may never hear of, because of their sensitivity.

The phrase may be ill-conceived, but the fact that there is a war on (and it is against “Islamic extremism” and not “Islam”) is undeniable - yet Edwards so denies.

So be it…if the Democrats want to give up on this issue, let Edwards trot that out in the general election and see what McCain or Giuliani can do with it…
17 Andy Vance Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Mmmmm. Vigorous military activities against Islamic extremism. Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

But seriously now. The bottom line here is WOT is pernicious because 1) it allows the spinners to put damn near any action under one rubric, regardless of the relevance or merits of individual decisions and 2) it effectively means war without end and without any identifiable benchmarks for progress or success. That’s a prescription for disaster.
18 Bob from Ohio Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Read the whole speech at the CFR website, not just the cliff note version in the WaPo. Then you’ll see that Mark is absolutely right.

Edwards is not merely saying the term “War on Terror” is wrong, he is attacking the whole concept of using military force (ie “war”) against terrorists.

By the way, “featherweight” is name calling? Well, it is insulting to feathers.
19 Andy Vance Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 10:02 am
he is attacking the whole concept of using military force (ie “war”) against terrorists.

Are you seriously claiming that war is defined as the “use of military force?”
20 Bob from Ohio Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Per Princeton.edu: war is ” the waging of armed conflict against an enemy”. So, yeah, I guess using military force is war.

I don’t get your point.
21 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
But there have been vigorous military activities not only in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, Somalia, the Phillipines, Iraq, and many other small operations that we may never hear of, because of their sensitivity.

And this doesn’t bother you at all? A series of slightly-connected military actions in other countries that we can lump together under one rubric simply because we want to? What exactly defines the limits of the war on terror? Or, as you put it, a war against Islamic extremism? In fact, since we’re apparently at war with a religious sect, how is this not a crusade? And, finally, how do we win? When terrorism and Islamic extremism end? Clearly that can’t be right - which shows what an empty thing this so-called “war” is. There is no possibility for an end and no way to tell if we’re having any success at all (unless you want to use the mind-bogglingly idiotic Cheney measure of “we haven’t been hit again” - because of course 9/11 (and all other samples where N=1) was really very useful for predicting the future).

One last thought: if we’re at war with Islamic extremism, why are we still allied with Saudi Arabia? Surely the Saudi government is extremist and Islamic, and just as surely when we were at war with Nazi Germany we weren’t simultaneously allies with a different part of Nazi Germany. But that’s just it, right? We aren’t actually at war with Islamic extremism; we’re at war with whichever target the Bush Administration selects at any given moment. We’ll just call it “terror” because we can sell that.
22 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
And, just to paint myself into the sissy liberal corner, I’ll go right ahead and agree with Edwards that war against terrorists makes absolutely no sense. They aren’t a well-defined enemy, they don’t have borders or a clear leadership structure, and there can be no terms of surrender for either side. Terrorists have a lot more in common with international crime cartels than they do with sovereign nations; we should deal with them in a similar fashion. Unless, of course, the Bush Administration’s next hare-brained scheme is a “war on human trafficking”.
23 Aaron Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
In fact, since we’re apparently at war with a religious sect, how is this not a crusade?

Because that’s not what a crusade is. A crusade is a “holy war.” You could make the argument that Al Qaeda is on a crusade, roughly equivalent to a “jihad,” the phrase Islamic extremists use more frequently. But a crusade is never defined by the enemy it fights. If we were going to the Middle East, Central Asia, Somalia and the South Pacific with the aim of converting the inhabitants to Christianity or any other religion, then it would be a crusade. This is not the case; we are going there to help foster democracy and prevent terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists from being purpotrated against the West. If this is a crusade, then so was WWII, where our aims were much the same — spreading democracy to the fascist states and preventing them from attacking us and our allies.

One last thought: if we’re at war with Islamic extremism, why are we still allied with Saudi Arabia? Surely the Saudi government is extremist and Islamic, and just as surely when we were at war with Nazi Germany we weren’t simultaneously allies with a different part of Nazi Germany.

An excellent example of a fallacy into which liberals draw themselves. They say that since the evil neocons (who are the real enemy, by the way) make comparisons between the WOT and WWII in support of the former, it’s okay for them to make like comparisons to dispell the WOT as well.

Of course, most of the comparisons I have heard from conservatives are quite general — we are in a global war with “a bunch of crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could”(Sen. Zell Miller at 2004 RNC). When liberals make WWII-WOT comparisons they are very specific — the time between Pearl Harbor and when we completely defeated Germany and Japan was less than the time between 9/11 and the present and we still haven’t captured UBL(argument made by Juan Cole). The holes in that line of reasoning are so obvious and numerous that I’d rather not waste my time pointing all of them out. Or see the above. Such a specific comparison just doesn’t work. It ignores the various differences between WWII and the WOT. It’s quite humorous, in fact, that you are criticizing the president for doing, in this case at least, essentially what you suggest in your next post:

Terrorists have a lot more in common with international crime cartels than they do with sovereign nations; we should deal with them in a similar fashion.

In how many states has the US undertaken military action in the WOT? Four (that I can recall) Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and the Phillippines. The former two had hostile governments, and the US staged a full invasion. In the Phillippines, US operations are not terribly dissimilar to those in Colombia during the War on Drugs. Somalia is in a civil war and we have conducted strikes against Al Qaeda-linked targets. Other states, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan have extensive Islamist terrorist networks within them, but they have friendly governments. So how do we best deal with them? Do we break off ties with these governments, declare war and start bombing them or do we, through diplomacy and aid help them to fight the terrorist networks within their countries (through military action) while at the same time pushing them toward reform.

It’s also quite amusing that the people calling for the US to bomb Saudi Arabia are the same people who would scream bloody murder if the US started drilling for oil in the ANWR, and would also scream bloody murder (and blame Bush of course) if gas prices went up to $7.00/gallon.
24 Andy Vance Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Wow, Aaron, you’re penultimate paragraph is the best case in the whole thread against the phrase War on Terror - better than Edwards’, even. Seriously.

That’s precisely why this administration uses WOT - because it levels all distinctions, and allows it to label criticism of any part of the policy as sympathetic to terrorists.

Too bad you had to go right back and set up the strawman again.
25 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I’m with Andy on this one. I’d also like to point out that I’m not calling for anyone to bomb Saudi Arabia; I’m trying to point out the sheer nonsensical idiocy of the idea of a “war on terror” - starting with the fact that it simultaneously overdefines (see Iraq) and underdefines (see Saudi Arabia) the so-called “enemy”. Not to mention that it apparently allows the executive to do essentially whatever it sees fit, from invading countries to police actions in other states to, well, torture. Funny that you would liken our tactics to tactics used in the “war on drugs,” our second-most quixotic crusade.

As for gas prices at $7.00/gallon, that seems like an okay idea to me. Using government taxation to eliminate the negative externalities of gas consumption is pretty much Econ 101 - more expensive gas means people making more sensible decisions about how to consume it.

You have any other strawmen you might like to toss out?
26 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
One last thing: I’m not making the WWII comparison because neocons do it; I’m making it because WWII was identifiably a war. I can use WWI, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the French and Indian War, the Peloponnesian War, whatever you like. The fundamental difference between a war and this farce is that a war has an identifiable enemy, parameters, and benchmarks and conditions for success. At best, you can sort of, kind of, roughly identiy an enemy in the “war on terror” - Islamic extremists, whatever that means.
27 Eric Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
In the wake of 9/11, it seems like there’s been a wide range of opinion on how best to respond to terrorism. On the far right end of the spectrum, there are people who believe that terrorism is a purely militaristic problem warranting a purely militaristic response. On the far left end, there are people who believe that terrorism is nothing more than a natural response to US imperialism, and that the problem can be mitigated to the extent that we mitigate our imperialistic behavior.

Of course, this is a gross generalization, and it does not preclude the fact that there are obviously conservatives out there who believe that there needs to be a strong diplomatic component to our response to terrorism, just as there are progressives out there who believe that there must be a militaristic component to our response. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that there is an ideological component to how one perceives that balance.

As a Democrat, it’s perhaps natural that Edwards would lean towards the less-militaristic end of the spectrum. And it’s natural that this might clash with the view of some conservatives. I recently read a book called Imperial Hubris that I thought laid out some very interesting arguments, hitting on many points along that spectrum of ideas. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.
28 Andy Vance Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
there needs to be a strong diplomatic component to our response to terrorism

No offense intended, but this is the kind of meaningless gobbledygook that stems from the War on Terror meme (and yes, Edwards spews it out as well). We’ve all been talking this way for so long and giving spin doctors carte blanche on definition of terms it’s hard to stop.

We don’t “respond to terrorism,” and we are not faced with a dichotomy of diplomatic and military responses. As Aaron laid out so well in his thumbnail sketch, our foreign policy involves a complex matrix of actors and a whole tool chest of possible responses to them.
29 Scott Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Perhaps the bigger question, given the fear that was evoked on 9/11 and the President’s repeated comments that people are trying to kill us and our children, is how can American’s feel safe if we aren’t in a WAR against our enemies?
30 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I’m glad it’s now the President’s job to make Americans FEEL safe, even at the expense of making them actually BE safe.
31 Pam from Hartford Says:
October 27th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Mark, What on earth does the bombing of 3000 people on 9/11 have to do with this illegal invasion and occupatio of Iraq????

As I remember it, those men were all from Saudi Arabia. They were AlQaeda. There were no AlQaeda in Ira until bush invaded.

Why then I ask, is the entire world calling Bush the World’s biggest Terrorist? Why are they condeming the invasion into Iraq, under the guise that Hussein had WMDs. Why did he have to manipulate intelligence in order to convince the Congress to back him?

Unfortunetly it is the Limbaugh listeneners and the Fox watchers who have all these distorted views of what Reality was and is.

I feel sorry for you.
32 Mark Says:
October 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Pam, I assure you no one around here is stupid enough to think Iraq was involved in 9/11. I didn’t say that here, and I never said it elsewhere.

Please take your pity elsewhere and find another strawman…
33 Andy Says:
October 27th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Pam, looking at current (as in Fall 2007) events certainly makes Edwards the clueless rube that he is:
1) Ready to throw in the towel before the surge got to full force
2) Syria’s secret attempt to leverage NoKo’s nuke technology
3) As Al Qaeda terrorists are being routed and exposed by locals to US & Iraqi troops
4) Iraqi politicians crawling out of hiding to assert their influence
5) Osama’s message of contrition to the Iraqis for inhumane treatment ranging from cutting fingers off, for the sin of smoking, to roasting young sons of prominent families for dinner during recruitment drives. As if saying, “Mistakes were made. We’re sorry. Now please join our campaign to drive out the infidels.
6) And now the hysterically funny turn of events that has thousands of humiliated Islamofascists attacking and panning Al Jezeera as a tool of Satan for interpreting Osama’s message to mean that Al Qaeda is losing the WOT.

I feel sorry for the defeatists. NOT