|
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Metaphor du jour 
| | By what argument can the telcos and cable monopolies tell a city that it has no right to build a community college? |
Deepen the heart
| | Sitting in a lounge at SFO yesterday, I saw some of President Bush's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Salt Lake City. It was a good speech, which contained one paragraph that may be his most concise case yet on behalf of the War on Terror, and for taking it first to Afghanistan and then to Iraq: |
| | Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. It is a vital part of our mission. Terrorists like bin Laden and his ally, Zarqawi, are trying to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a place where women are beaten, religious and ethnic minorities are executed, and terrorists have sanctuary to plot attacks against free people. Terrorists are trying to block the rise of democracy in Iraq, because they know a free Iraq will deal a decisive blow to their strategy to achieve absolute power. The Iraqi people lived for three decades under an absolute dictatorship, and they will not allow a new set of would-be tyrants to take control of their future. |
| | That passage, however, summarizes two preceding paragraphs that express something that concerns many of us: belief that the War on Terror is fundamentally a military one, which must be fought and won on military terms: |
| | So the second part of our strategy is to take the fight to the terrorists abroad before they can attack us here at home. This is the most difficult and dangerous mission in the war on terror. And like generations before them, our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines have stepped forward to accept the mission. They've damaged the al Qaeda network across the world and we're going to keep the terrorists on the run. From Afghanistan to Iraq, to the Horn of Africa, our men and women in uniform are bringing our enemies to justice and bringing justice to our enemies. |
| | Our goal is clear: to secure a more peaceful world for our children and grandchildren. We will accept nothing less than total victory over the terrorists and their hateful ideology. (Applause.) |
| | That's a great line, "bringing our enemies to justice and bringing justice to our enemies." President Bush has used it (or a variant of it) before, many times. |
| | I think that line worked well for Afghanistan. There was a direct connection between the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. and Bin Laden and his Taliban sponsors. That miserable country was also in serious need of improvements that only military action could bring. War at its best is a lesser evil, but in this case relatively few would argue that the lesser evil didn't bring greater good. |
| | I worry that the same thinking is delusional in Iraq. I worry that our continued military presence there causes more terrorism than it eliminates. And I worry that the strongest nation on Earth will be weakened by making the War on Terror primarily a military one. |
| | We talked about this a bit at my Aunt's house this past weekend, and it wasn't a comfortable subject. There is a strong tradition of military service in our family, and among our close friends. About half the adults at my Aunt's house this past weekend were veterans. And about half of those, I would guess, were less than enthusiastic about the war in Iraq. |
| | I think one problem is the way we frame the debate, which is usually in Left vs. Right terms. I was surprised to read this morning that opposition to the President's speech in Salt Lake City was led by Mayor Rocky Anderson. (An anti-war guy named Rocky was elected to something in Utah? Wow.) But I wasn't surprised by the way the opposition was described (or described itself). One excerpt from the story: |
| | "Our nation was lied into a war," said Anderson, who was booed by VFW members earlier in the day but cheered by Bush protesters in Pioneer Park. |
| | Whether or not the country was lied to war is beside a point that isn't being debated much at all: Who and what are we really fighting here? And, How are they fighting us that we don't know about? I suspect the best answers to both questions cannot be described by the rhetorical vocabulary of either side. |
| | The need for authoritative and independent wisdom on the matter leads naturally to John Robb. John's anti-terrorism creds are somewhere between impressive and intimidating: ...served in a tier one counter-terrorist unit that worked closely with Delta and Seal Team 6. ... participated in global operations as a mission commander, pilot, and mission planner (El Salvador, Panama, Colombia, Egypt, etc.). Numerous medals for exemplary service. |
| | Yesterday he reported that Haditha, an "autonomous" town of 90,000 in Iraq, is under the control of al Qaeda-connected Emirs that strong-arm the local hydroelectric power plant to deliver 24-hour electricity while the rest of the country gets a third of that. John adds, dryly, "The ability to deliver basic services, when the central government cannot, generates legitimacy." |
| | I think our best sources of intelligence and wisdom about What's Going On and What We Can Do About It aren't on TV or talk radio or other Usual Suspects. They're individuals like John, whose experience and perspective fall outside the Left-vs-Right debate framework. Thomas P.M. Barnett (example here) is one of them. Gwynne Dyer (example here) is another. |
| | Ya'll got some other nominees? We need them. |
| | [Later...] Blogbacks from Toby Getsch and Kevin Marks — not in response, but independently barking up a similar (long tail & other angles) tree. |
There are responses to this message:Re: Tuesday, August 23, 2005, Greg, 8/24/05; 8:44:23 AM Re: Tuesday, August 23, 2005, JTH, 8/24/05; 1:58:04 AM Re: Tuesday, August 23, 2005, Van der Leun, 8/24/05; 12:08:20 AM Re: Tuesday, August 23, 2005, JTH, 8/23/05; 10:11:16 PM
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
