Thursday, September 11, 2008
A Hole In the World Tonight
The 9/11 anniversary snuck up on me today, but I wanted to share a few remembrances of the traumatic time and a few general thoughts on the subject
*******
In the aftermath of the attacks, Jay Leno was determined to put The Tonight Show back on the air. But nobody was in the mood for laughter. Who would be his first guests on the post-9/11 Tonight Show?
Jay came back with none other than Graham Nash and John McCain. And the brightest moment of the night came when John McCain addressed the terrorists directly and said, "May God have mercy on you, because we won't." Those were the exact words that the country needed to hear in the midst of so much hurting.
At the same time, in a church on Chicago's south side, a racialist preacher gloated in America's newfound comeuppance. "God damn America!" he shouted to his audience the following Sunday. That preacher was none other than Jeremiah Wright, and one of his pupils would be presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
The Bush team framed the 2004 election as "September 10th people versus September 12th people." I don't believe that analogy applies to 2008. Instead, I see 2008 as a clash between those who unequivocally saw the 9/11 attacks as a great evil that had to be fought with all instruments of national power, and those who were too meek to denounce anti-Americanism in their own backyards. It's as stark a difference as "God Bless America" versus "God damn America." The presidency is no place for being meek in the face of moral confusion.
*******
I was listening to the Jim Villanucci radio show in Albuquerque this afternoon and heard the tale from one caller who witnessed the towers collapsing from his car, stalled on the Verrazano Bridge. This caller lost somebody special in the disaster, and he was on the verge of tears talking about it. He struck me as being very strong for having called in to share his account of that fateful day. His account made the attacks all the more personal, even as that day passes further and further into the annals of history.
*******
In spite of John McCain's pledge on The Tonight Show seven years ago, America's progress in combating international Islamist terrorism has been uneven. Through a combination of overseas military action and domestic law enforcement, America has prevented a major terrorist attack on its soil. Iraq, pulled into the wider terror-war for reasons still hotly debated, is finally coming under control after the "surge" under the leadership of General David Petraeus. But Admiral Mike Mullen admits that we aren't winning in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Many people fail to see that Afghanistan is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq. Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations on earth and runs primarily on a barter economy. It's more mountainous and more tribal in nature than Iraq. It shares a border with the tribal regious of Pakistan, which are even more lawless than Afghanistan.
As Iraq begins to resemble victory more-and-more by the day, military commanders hope to take troops from Iraq and move their replacements into Afghanistan. I'm conflicted on whether more men will really make a difference, but I hold hope that applying the general "surge" counterinsurgency strategy to the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan will make a difference in diminishing Taliban and al Qaeda support. The big question mark is how freely the new Pakistani government will allow the US to operate on the Pakistani side of the border, and what steps they will take to combat extremism in their own country. The harder they push against the Taliban, the harder the anti-American elements of Pakistani society push back against the government.
*******
The lesson in all of this is that anti-Americanism is a problem that has existed for a long time, and didn't magically appear once George Bush took office. America's enemies have a long list of grievances, ranging from the justified to the absurd. Ultimately, they reject the hegemony of America and American values. The world is engulfed in a clash of civilizations because Osama bin Laden and his followers had the audacity to launch a brazen and unjustified attack against America's weakest point: its own citizens, who lay unprepared and unarmed against what was coming.
We must all have the clarity of purpose to ensure that this never happens again.
*******
In the aftermath of the attacks, Jay Leno was determined to put The Tonight Show back on the air. But nobody was in the mood for laughter. Who would be his first guests on the post-9/11 Tonight Show?
Jay came back with none other than Graham Nash and John McCain. And the brightest moment of the night came when John McCain addressed the terrorists directly and said, "May God have mercy on you, because we won't." Those were the exact words that the country needed to hear in the midst of so much hurting.
At the same time, in a church on Chicago's south side, a racialist preacher gloated in America's newfound comeuppance. "God damn America!" he shouted to his audience the following Sunday. That preacher was none other than Jeremiah Wright, and one of his pupils would be presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
The Bush team framed the 2004 election as "September 10th people versus September 12th people." I don't believe that analogy applies to 2008. Instead, I see 2008 as a clash between those who unequivocally saw the 9/11 attacks as a great evil that had to be fought with all instruments of national power, and those who were too meek to denounce anti-Americanism in their own backyards. It's as stark a difference as "God Bless America" versus "God damn America." The presidency is no place for being meek in the face of moral confusion.
*******
I was listening to the Jim Villanucci radio show in Albuquerque this afternoon and heard the tale from one caller who witnessed the towers collapsing from his car, stalled on the Verrazano Bridge. This caller lost somebody special in the disaster, and he was on the verge of tears talking about it. He struck me as being very strong for having called in to share his account of that fateful day. His account made the attacks all the more personal, even as that day passes further and further into the annals of history.
*******
In spite of John McCain's pledge on The Tonight Show seven years ago, America's progress in combating international Islamist terrorism has been uneven. Through a combination of overseas military action and domestic law enforcement, America has prevented a major terrorist attack on its soil. Iraq, pulled into the wider terror-war for reasons still hotly debated, is finally coming under control after the "surge" under the leadership of General David Petraeus. But Admiral Mike Mullen admits that we aren't winning in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Many people fail to see that Afghanistan is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq. Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations on earth and runs primarily on a barter economy. It's more mountainous and more tribal in nature than Iraq. It shares a border with the tribal regious of Pakistan, which are even more lawless than Afghanistan.
As Iraq begins to resemble victory more-and-more by the day, military commanders hope to take troops from Iraq and move their replacements into Afghanistan. I'm conflicted on whether more men will really make a difference, but I hold hope that applying the general "surge" counterinsurgency strategy to the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan will make a difference in diminishing Taliban and al Qaeda support. The big question mark is how freely the new Pakistani government will allow the US to operate on the Pakistani side of the border, and what steps they will take to combat extremism in their own country. The harder they push against the Taliban, the harder the anti-American elements of Pakistani society push back against the government.
*******
The lesson in all of this is that anti-Americanism is a problem that has existed for a long time, and didn't magically appear once George Bush took office. America's enemies have a long list of grievances, ranging from the justified to the absurd. Ultimately, they reject the hegemony of America and American values. The world is engulfed in a clash of civilizations because Osama bin Laden and his followers had the audacity to launch a brazen and unjustified attack against America's weakest point: its own citizens, who lay unprepared and unarmed against what was coming.
We must all have the clarity of purpose to ensure that this never happens again.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Sticking With the Script
After watching John McCain speak today, I have a fairly mediocre opinion of the acceptance speech. I remember getting chills from his speech at the Republican National Convention in 2000, and I don't think he'll ever improve upon it.
The McCain acceptance speech touched mostly on his typical memes of his experience as a POW in Vietnam and commitment to service. He did work in some responses to criticisms that he's too much like George Bush, and too disconnected from average Americans during the economic downturn. (Although the new Bob Woodward book should also help to dispel the notion that John McCain is George Bush's bosom buddy.) I did catch a few jabs at the unions, which may score minor points with the Republican base while scoring disproportionately more damage with blue-collar Americans.
By contrast, the Palin speech struck a lot of people out-of-the-blue and came as a curiosity to many, due to the historic nature of her candidacy. She got her jabs in at Barack Obama in a way that resonates with small-town America. She affirmed that she's an iron lady, and not a mere political token of diversity. The speech wasn't about policy specifics, but it didn't need to be. The speech had to dispel the giggle factor and make people take her seriously.
While Sarah Palin probably won't win over too many disaffected Hillary voters, she's what the Republican party needed to boost its morale. Many Republicans, focusing on the times when he's been a maverick against his own party, didn't view John McCain as a conservative. They would be grudgingly vote against Obama, rather than passionately vote for McCain. With Sarah Palin in the picture as a youthful conservative who eschews the liberal vision of feminism, conservatives want to vote for something again, rather than making lukewarm attempts to vote against a Democrat candidate they share zero common ground with. Sarah Palin is more than a rockstar, in the sense that Barack is the Democrats' rockstar. Indeed, Sarah Palin is the car battery connected to the nipples of the Republican Party, sending a jolt through them to wake them from their sense of defeatism.
The Republicans can keep the White House if they allow Sarah Palin to hold the Right and mobilize new voters, while John McCain runs to the Center. Working against them is the new electoral math. John McCain is in danger of losing states that were part of George Bush's road to electoral victory in 2004. Unless he can come from behind to take Democrat-leaning battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan or New Hampshire, it will be an Obama presidency in January.
The McCain acceptance speech touched mostly on his typical memes of his experience as a POW in Vietnam and commitment to service. He did work in some responses to criticisms that he's too much like George Bush, and too disconnected from average Americans during the economic downturn. (Although the new Bob Woodward book should also help to dispel the notion that John McCain is George Bush's bosom buddy.) I did catch a few jabs at the unions, which may score minor points with the Republican base while scoring disproportionately more damage with blue-collar Americans.
By contrast, the Palin speech struck a lot of people out-of-the-blue and came as a curiosity to many, due to the historic nature of her candidacy. She got her jabs in at Barack Obama in a way that resonates with small-town America. She affirmed that she's an iron lady, and not a mere political token of diversity. The speech wasn't about policy specifics, but it didn't need to be. The speech had to dispel the giggle factor and make people take her seriously.
While Sarah Palin probably won't win over too many disaffected Hillary voters, she's what the Republican party needed to boost its morale. Many Republicans, focusing on the times when he's been a maverick against his own party, didn't view John McCain as a conservative. They would be grudgingly vote against Obama, rather than passionately vote for McCain. With Sarah Palin in the picture as a youthful conservative who eschews the liberal vision of feminism, conservatives want to vote for something again, rather than making lukewarm attempts to vote against a Democrat candidate they share zero common ground with. Sarah Palin is more than a rockstar, in the sense that Barack is the Democrats' rockstar. Indeed, Sarah Palin is the car battery connected to the nipples of the Republican Party, sending a jolt through them to wake them from their sense of defeatism.
The Republicans can keep the White House if they allow Sarah Palin to hold the Right and mobilize new voters, while John McCain runs to the Center. Working against them is the new electoral math. John McCain is in danger of losing states that were part of George Bush's road to electoral victory in 2004. Unless he can come from behind to take Democrat-leaning battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan or New Hampshire, it will be an Obama presidency in January.
Monday, September 01, 2008
The Buffoon Who Came Into the Cold
Sean Guillory, who blogs at Sean's Russia Blog, posts a very snarky piece on Pajamas Media about Cold War II. While he does make us consider the ramifications of a second Cold War with Russia, his sarcastic tone and his underlying assumption that Cold War II is inevitable are counterproductive.
Having good relations with Russia is in America's best interest. America needs Russian natural gas supplies and does not need the Russians exporting military equipment and nuclear technology to states like Iran and Syria. At the same time, it's hard to have good relations with a nation that's invading western allies like Georgia and making threats against Poland. It's a situation that will test America's best foreign policy experts, but nobody is longing for a new Cold War, especially when we're fully consumed with fighting terrorism across the globe.
America needs to determine what its vital interests are and make decisions which strengthen our positions on those issues. Georgian self-determination and nuclear non-proliferation are probably more important than ensuring civil liberties within Russia, for instance. Once we prioritize our diplomatic shopping list, it should be easier to make the tough decisions that lie ahead.
We also need to take stock of our bargaining chips. For instance, what would the Russians be willing to give up in exchange for terminating missile defense, or further reducing the nuclear stockpile? Does America have a price it can put on any of these? America also risks its credibility if it backs down on these issues.
The enduring question is whether American can afford to tolerate the Putin-Medvedev regime in the name of preserving effective diplomatic ties with Russia. For the time being, we might not have any other choice.
Having good relations with Russia is in America's best interest. America needs Russian natural gas supplies and does not need the Russians exporting military equipment and nuclear technology to states like Iran and Syria. At the same time, it's hard to have good relations with a nation that's invading western allies like Georgia and making threats against Poland. It's a situation that will test America's best foreign policy experts, but nobody is longing for a new Cold War, especially when we're fully consumed with fighting terrorism across the globe.
America needs to determine what its vital interests are and make decisions which strengthen our positions on those issues. Georgian self-determination and nuclear non-proliferation are probably more important than ensuring civil liberties within Russia, for instance. Once we prioritize our diplomatic shopping list, it should be easier to make the tough decisions that lie ahead.
We also need to take stock of our bargaining chips. For instance, what would the Russians be willing to give up in exchange for terminating missile defense, or further reducing the nuclear stockpile? Does America have a price it can put on any of these? America also risks its credibility if it backs down on these issues.
The enduring question is whether American can afford to tolerate the Putin-Medvedev regime in the name of preserving effective diplomatic ties with Russia. For the time being, we might not have any other choice.
