A Question of Policy

Much is being made of Richard Clarke's 60 Minutes interview and upcoming book. I should warn you right now, I did not watch the interview--I didn't feel any need to do so, as I already knew who the man was and, essentially, what he was going to say. While he is being touted as "Bush's former counterterrorism aide," the fact is that Clarke is no conservative, was not handpicked by Bush, and has the same essential policy concepts as Kerry in reference to the war on terror.

As The American Spectator puts it:

Clarke was a favored figure in the Clinton administration. "My name is on the table next to Madeleine Albright and Bill Cohen," he proudly told the press in the 1990s. But press stories now are more eager to describe him as an ex-Bush aide than Clinton holdover.

As even 60 Minutes had to acknowledge, Clarke is team-teaching a course at Harvard with a John Kerry adviser. Clarke is only an ex-Bush aide in the most accidental sense. Like David Stockman, Paul O'Neill, etc., Clarke is proof that whenever a Republican administration extends an olive branch to an establishment liberal he just grabs it and starts beating Republicans with it once he gets the chance.

Of course Clarke will differ from Bush on how to wage the war on terror--Clarke comes from the Clinton school of terror response. That is, a few cruise missiles and a press release usually "solves" the problem.

Reading about the interview, though, it's interesting to note that Clarke quotes Bush as saying "I want you to find whether Iraq did this" following the 9/11 attacks, and somehow imagines that Bush is coming close to the line of asking his aides to manufacture data. Apparently, for a President to ask if it was possible that an enemy who had supported efforts to kill a former US President, and who had a history of aggression might possibly have been behind the attacks. That revelation did nothing to bolster Clarke's credibility with me.

The ever-astute Clarke then reveals that he could tell from her facial expressions that Condi Rice had never heard of al-Queda until 9/11. I will put this as simply as I can: I don't believe him. Anyone who believes that the brilliant, accomplished National Security Advisor had never before heard of al-Queda has near-zero credibility in my book. Of course, perhaps, as Rice has suggested, Clarke really is trying to make himself look better in all this.

"I don't know why Dick Clarke tries to read people's minds," she said, explaining how she heard of Al Qaeda in 1998.

She added that Clarke may be trying to protect himself by lashing out at the administration.

"We, of course, had, of course, heard that, in 1998, when Dick Clarke was the counterterrorism czar, Al Qaeda had bombed U.S. embassies. We, of course, heard that Al Qaeda was suspected of bombing the [USS] Cole in 2000 when Dick Clarke was counterterrorism czar. And we learned that plots against the U.S. had been hatching since the '90s, when Dick Clarke was counterterrorism czar."

When you think about it, that's not exactly a sterling record for a counterterrorism czar, is it?

The truth is that Clarke is lashing out at the Bush White House because he utterly disagrees with their anti-terror strategy. The anti-Iraq-war left still believe that countering terrorism is an issue of police and social work--arresting the right people, collecting information, issuing warrants, and soothing hurt feelings.

The Bush White House believes that the situation requires a much further reaching strategy embodying some measure of police work, strategic military application, data collection, financial warfare, and nation building. We didn't attack Iraq for control of oil or because of a direct connection to 9/11. We didn't attack only because of a belief that Hussein both had and was pursuing weapons of mass destruction or because he was a source of instability in the Middle East (although both of these played a part in the decision, of course).

No, the reason we attacked Iraq, and the thing that anti-war liberals either do not understand or simply don't agree with, is that we needed a place to begin nation building. Iraq provided the perfect beachhead for the spread of liberal virtue in the Middle East.

Iraq was ruled by a dictator who needed to be removed from office and was an industrial nation that should be able to be rebuilt into a significant political and economic force in the region. It was near other nations that are having their own political upheavals and who could benefit from a model nation in the area. While there was much anti-American sentiment, there was also a potential well of goodwill towards Americans that could be tapped, especially if the war were won quick and as clean as possible. And it also offered the opportunity to showcase American military might--just how far ahead of the rest of the world we are in both technology and tactics.

As a target of opportunity to achieve a wide range of policy goals, Iraq was perfect. It also underscores the difference of opinion between the two sides of the debate on the subject of the root cause of terrorism.

In the Bush camp, the cause is thought to be the political and religious conservatism that has taken such a strong hold in the region--not a poverty of the wallet, but a poverty of freedom and a realistic view of the rest of the world. To stop terrorism, don't simply address the terrorists, but also the regimes and political realities that allowed them to come about. That requires constitutional governments that allow for free press, freedom of speech, representation of minority views, respect for religious differences, and a true concept of individual liberty.

The left's concept of the root of terror is quite a bit different. The root cause to them is American support of Israel, American adventurism in the Middle East, and poverty in the Middle East. Their solution is to respond lightly to attacks, to moderate American influence in the region (outside of Israel), and to use our influence with Israel to keep them from responding with violence to terrorism. Theirs is the psychobabble solution of "understanding." That is, if we just open a dialogue and really try to understand each other, then all the terrorism will stop.

Clarke isn't bashing the administration because the Bush White House is soft on terror, but because he doesn't agree with the policies or with the analysis of the root cause of terrorism. He would rather the White House had returned to his way of seeing the conflict--and employed a strategy of measured response and understanding whenever a terrorist went after US interests.

Seeing how the Clarke and Clinton strategies that guided us through the 90's were so amazingly unsuccessful, it's no wonder the Bush White House decided to go in another direction.

Read the FoxNews.com story.
Read the Spectator article.

Posted by zombyboy at March 22, 2004 11:02 AM | TrackBack