|
|
|
Jewish World Review Oct 11, 2005 / 8 Tishrei, 5766 Bush's expansionism leaving U.S. exposed By Robert Robb
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
President Bush has a very expansive view of what the United States needs to
do to protect the country against terrorist attack, more fully articulated
in his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy last Thursday than
ever before.
The question is whether it is all truly necessary, or at least prudent, or
whether it is overreaching and excessively risky.
There are certain core activities that are unarguably necessary to protect
the country against terrorist attack.
We need to button-up the homeland by enforcing our immigration laws and
maximizing our ability to detect and disrupt terrorist activity.
We need to gain the cooperation of other countries in detecting and
disrupting terrorist activities elsewhere and cutting off the financing of
terrorism.
And we need to be willing to take military action, and be universally
perceived as being so willing, to prevent another Afghanistan, in which
terrorists have safe haven to plot and launch attacks against us.
President Bush, however, feels that these core activities are insufficient.
Islamic militants have a universal ambition, he correctly observes. They
want to establish a radical Islamic theocracy, particularly in the Arab
world.
According to Bush, the United States needs to thwart this ambition. In
fact, the implication of what he says is that, unless the United States
leads the fight against Islamic militants in the Arab world, they will
succeed in their ambition.
Moreover, according to Bush, winning the fight against Islamic militants in
the Arab world requires not only taking the fight to them, but also
transforming the region through democratic governance and free markets.
The assumption that, except for the United States, Islamic militants would
succeed in taking over the Arab world seems doubtful, to put it mildly —
particularly if Bush is correct in his assertion that the militants
represent a tiny fraction of Islamic sentiment.
There are a lot of Arabs with a lot of resources with an even larger stake
in preventing the militants from seizing power than the United States.
There's a larger probability that the Bush expansionist view partially
transforms what should be an Arab fight into an American one, and thus
makes the United States a larger target for terrorism than need be.
In his speech, Bush stressed an analogy between the fight against Islamic
militants with the fight against communism, given that both have a
universalistic ambition. But the differences are more important than the
similarities.
The Soviet Union was a state superpower with a large national economy and a
robust military capability. Militant Islam has neither. Moreover, the
strategic approach to communism was primarily containment rather than
direct military engagement.
The immediate issue, of course, is Iraq. Bush openly asserted that without
the U.S. continued large military presence, Islamic militants would take
over the country. He asked: "Would the United States and other free nations
be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq,
its people, and its resources?"
The answer, of course, is less safe. But the antecedent question is why
would the Shia, the Kurds and even more moderate Sunnis, with substantially
larger numbers and resources than the militants, allow that to happen?
A more pertinent question at this point is one Bush wants to avoid: Is the
pervasive U.S. military presence in Iraq sufficient cause in itself to keep
the insurgency alive?
Perhaps the most troubling consequence of Bush's overly expansionist view
is that it detracts attention and resources from the truly core activities
necessary to protect this country against terrorism.
The United States is nowhere near where it should be in buttoning-up the
homeland. After Afghanistan, there would have been no doubt of U.S. resolve
to take military action to prevent terrorists who threaten us from finding
new sanctuary elsewhere in the world. The debilitating Iraq war has
weakened that resolve domestically and the perception of it
internationally.
The Democrats have been disingenuous and incompetent in their critique of
the Bush approach. They offer no alternative strategy, just complaints
about the management of the existing one.
The United States should be concentrating on the core activities necessary
to protect the country against terrorist attack. It is vital that they be
conducted as well as possible.
The lack of a prominent national political figure making that case is a
tragedy.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, The Arizona Republic |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||
