Le Sabot Post-Moderne

Discoshaman - I know you are a political junkie, but the question of whether or not America will "REALLY" be any safer with a President Kerry is probably not as good a question as "what will it take to make America safe?" or "why is American hegemony being threatened?". I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but the world is becoming increasingly dangerous; what Americans need is less political discussion and more policy analysis.

You are probably right that Senator Kerry is not offering a policy that significantly addresses America's place in this new world. Like most US politicians of both parties, he is defining himself against the person who has the power he seeks. But President Bush's foreign policy is deeply unsettling to many and, of all arguments, the argument that another political candidate would make the US safer is actually one of the more reasonable positions to take against Bush.

From a recent Foreign Affairs review of books on America's "Illusions of Empire": "The Bush administration's war on terrorism, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, expanded military budget, and controversial 2002 National Security Strategy have thrust American power into the light of day -- and, in doing so, deeply unsettled much of the world. Worry about the implications of American unipolarity is the not-so-hidden subtext of recent U.S.-European tension and has figured prominently in recent presidential elections in Germany, Brazil, and South Korea. The most fundamental questions about the nature of global politics -- who commands and who benefits -- are now the subject of conversation among long-time allies and adversaries alike."

Like Bush or hate him, love Kerry or loathe him, neither is above the current American political hierarchy, party system or entrenched power to change this part of American Imperialism. The debate could be over what it is going to take to make America recognize its real perception in the world (probably a moot point), or as one book asked "Why Do They Hate Us?" Now that is meaningful dialogue, not political diatribe.

I don't know.

I do know that military cuts were a deep commitment of the Democrats in the 90's, spearheaded by Pres. Clinton, a decision I strongly opposed (not that they asked me). Kerry was likely following the party line.

I don't know if we will be safer. But I don't know how things could be any more dangerous. Those who hate us are here, and have the power to cause us harm. All of Bush's privacy trampling policies haven't weeded them out. Terrorism may be something we have to learn to live with on a daily basis as they do in Israel. And that may be the case no matter who we elect.

While I am in the midst of trying desperately to convince my little sister that marrying someone because "he" would be better than "nobody" is the wrong way to go about choosing a husband, I find myself selecting a candidate that way... the "anybody but Bush" mentality. Luckily Presidents are only for 4 years, not life.

Boy do I wish we had a viable 3rd party.

"But I don't know how things could be any more dangerous."

Well, for starters, we could have had a terrorist attack somewhere in the U.S. within the last 2 1/2 years. That would be more dangerous.

If the anti-terrorism policies aren't working, and we haven't had any attacks, what would it look like if they were working?

"What would it look like if {the anti-terrorism policies] were working?"

Osama bin Laden would be sitting in a jail cell.

As for things being more dangerous... was the America safe on Sept 10th, 2001? No, we *presumed* it was safe because we were ignorant of what was about to happen. Now we know these people (by that I mean al-Qaeda, not Arabs in general) are here and mean to do us harm. They were not satisfied with Sept 11th. They plan to do it again. It is ludricrous to think that just because it hasn't happened yet, that it won't happen. On Sept 10th, we had 200+ years as a nation without a single terrorist attack (check that, how many years had it been since Oklahoma City?).
Did you happen to write this unaware of what happened in Madrid this week? They are going to strike again if we do not capture them all. Bush has allowed himself to be diverted from his task of bringing bin Laden to justice. Will Kerry do any better? I don't know. But Bush's putting the war in Afghanistan on the back burner only allowed al-Qaeda to re-coup. How hard can it be to catch a man on dialysis wandering through the desert? Just think, if all our men in Iraq had instead been deployed instead to Afghanistan... I believe we would have him by now, they've been so close so many times.
Further, I have heard it said that on Sept 12th, all the bin Laden family members in the US (there were several here at the time) were allowed to leave by private jets sent from Saudi Arabia. Americans couldn't fly, but because of the long-standing friendship between the Bushes and the Saudi royals, these people were allowed to leave without ever being questioned by the FBI. And now Saudi Arabia won't allow the CIA or FBI in to question these family members. Bush's personal relationships have, I feel, made this country a more dangerous place.
I am elated that US law enforcement has stymied some terrorist plans. We have had some successes. But as long as bin Laden lives free, he will continue his crusade. And the longer it goes that we cannot find him, the stronger he becomes. These are patient people. 2 1/2 years without an attack on US soil means they've had 2 1/2 years to plan the next one.
I'm sorry this became about Bush again. At this point though, I think the best way to look at Kerry is that he may make mistakes, but they won't be the same ones that have been made already. And I don't think he's thinking of cutting defense spending these days.

What do internal anti-terrorism policies have to do with finding a guy who's got an extensive network to protect him and a propensity to hide in caves in hostile or semi-hostile countries?

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. Did you just ask what our terrorism policies have to do with Osama bin Laden?!

The original post had to do with Kerry voting to cut defense and intelligence spending. This is not an invalid point. This is what caused me to sigh and admit that he isn't the white knight of a leader that I was hoping would rise to the Democratic nomination to defeat Bush and change the way things work in this country.

I pointed out, however, that the measures Bush has taken have not made us any safer at home, or abroad, and in fact may have made us more hated internationally and the target of more attacks. You questioned how 2 1/2 years without attacks did not signify that his policies were "working" and I pointed out that we haven't stopped him at all, we've simply caused him to change his address a few times. He's still attacking us in Iraq, daily, attacking our allies, and planning another big attack to happen on US soil. I pointed out that this means we have not succeeded in our mission to end terrorism, nor have we made great enough strides in that direction for the amount of time that has passed since Sept 11th.

Our terrorism policies have everything to do with this man and his "network" which I don't think is so extensive. They rely mostly on man-power, cell phones and laptops. This is a man who could be stopped if we had only committed the resources necessary to the job. That is my point. Kerry may have voted to decrease intelligence spending (though apparently no one else did, so it was of no consequence), but Bush is the one who, when push came to shove, didn't commit the resources to get the job done, and this has had serious consequences.
And Afghanistan is ruled by a man we put there, and Pakistan's leader is our ally, so I'm not sure what hostile nations you are talking about.

Why would you assume that a lack of attack in the past two years means we are safe and Bush's policies have worked? If you'd been raped by a man who said he'd stalked you and planned the attack, but the attacker was never caught, would you ever feel safe again? How could you be sure he would not strike again? And if he mailed you tapes every so often, saying he planned to do it again, would you say, "Well he didn't do it today, so I'm safe."

To turn the question around, what do YOU think that anti-terrorism policies should be about, if not bin Laden?

Autmom -- I don't assume that the lack of attack means that we are safe.

However, I do gather from it that we are not as endangered as we might be, if, one or more of these attacks that have been threatened had actually happened -- therefore, it's just as unreasonable to conclude that the policies aren't working as it is to insist that they're flawless.

And I suppose I misunderstood -- by "anti-terrorism policies" I thought you were referring to Homeland Security sorts of things. Catching bin Laden isn't really affected by that.

But if you don't believe that bin Laden's network is extensive, I may have some slightly damaged real estate in Madrid to sell you....still, he is not the whole point of the war on terror. Terrorism is much bigger than just one man. It would be unwise to expend a wildly disproportionate amount of our limited terrorism fighting resources on the hunt for a single man, while neglecting other aspects of the problem.

As for Pakistan and Afghanistan, it is true that their leaders are generally supportive of us nowadays. It is equally true that they have little actual control over the more radical members of their respective populations. Thus the designation "semi-hostile."