A very large contingent of Democrats does not believe that radical Islam even exists in any shape that would qualify them as an "enemy". If it doesn't have divisions and tanks, it can't be a threat, that's the way they look at it. Besides, it's always wrong for America to use its military power, since the powerful are always wrong and weak are always right. They cannot believe in the existence of Bush's reasons for the war. I don't mean they can't agree with Bush's reasons, they simply cannot believe that Bush means what he says. It's all absurd lies from beginning to end in their view, so Bush must have ulterior motives. Must have, there's no other explanation. This makes them ripe pickings for a conspiracy-peddlar like Moore.
I can't go along with the notion that a large contingent of Dems doesn't believe in the existence of radical Islam ("RI"). The evidence is overwhelming. No halfway operating intellect can deny the reality. Any doubts can be answered with a simple explanation--9/11/01.
The Dems do differ, however, on what to do about it. My personal experience in discussing the issue with Dem friends who are not round the bend is that the preferred mode is engagement and compromise, using the vast numbers of reasonable Muslims as a sort of lever to reach the militants.
My retort generally is that unlike terror groups of the past, RI has global goals which cannot succeed simply because success means the overthrow the prevailing mode of global culture. The breadth of these goals make using moderate Muslims to defuse RI simply impossible.
Ironically, RI's goal is so huge and so all-encompassing that it cannot succeed if only because of the size of its ambitions. This is an interesting paradox and the key to defusing and defeating it.
In order to minimize RI's terrorism, and perhaps defeat it, our strategy needs to be to make sure that RI knows in its bones that it cannot accomplish its global goals. To do so, we must be resolute, fight RI wherever we can find it.
The Dems know that RI exists, naturally. However, I think that what they perhaps fail to see are the magnitude of its goals. Dems also fail to acknowledge that the key to stopping RI's terror is to fight RI resolutely, to the point that it knows that its global ambitions are a best-abandoned pipe dream.
In this sense, and in this sense only, 9/11 was a wake up call for which we can be grateful. The Dems would like to go back to the old somnolence, the GOP I think is much more aware of the dangers. It is the reason Bush should win this election.
This to me is the unarticulated distinction between Dems and the GOP. Unless Kerry addresses it in a manner which effectively distinguishes his policies from Bush's, he's lost.
There is, however, nothing to prevent Kerry from agreeing with Bush's views on terrorism and the need to fight it relentlessly. If he did so and if he apologized to the Swifites, we could see a different campaign. So far, however, I have seen no signs that Kerry is astute enough to see the way to victory. Perhaps he knows his record does not allow for another volte face, though it might make him a contender. |
