Jeering the Republic

Here is The New Republic's response to the Madrid bombings, from their March 29th issue. You'll need to be a subscriber to get the whole thing.

The editors seem to have fallen into the same 'a victory for the socialists is a victory for the terrorists' trap that their writer Andrew Sullivan has been infected with. I doubt it's contagious.

The Spanish election was obviously a referendum on terrorism; and if the American election will not also be such an exercise, it will be because the Democrats will have persuaded Americans of their deadly seriousness in foreign affairs, which they have not yet done. To be sure, it is possible to oppose Al Qaeda and to oppose the war in Iraq. But about one thing we should be clear: It is not possible to oppose Al Qaeda and to oppose the United States. Such a view is not coherent and not serious. In the world as it actually exists, the most effective enemy of Al Qaeda is the United States.

This paragraph seems to me to be a string of logical malfeasancies (to coin a term). From bottom to top:

The United States is not the most effective enemy of Al Qaeda in the world. Our operations in Afghanistan were a tremendous impediment to Al Qaeda operations around the world, a significant accomplishment; the best shot at ending Al Qaeda outright, however, comes from the Islamic reformist movement that is emerging in the most ironic of places: Iran. There is also Turkey as a model of how Islam can coexist with democracy. These forces offer less of a fireworks display than occupying Afghanistan or Iraq, but when the enemy is a broad ideological movement, such as militant Islamic anti-Americanism, the best opposition comes from the same place: a broad ideological movement personified by people like Shohreh Aghdashloo.

It is difficult to oppose Al Qaeda and to oppose the United States, but a few people do manage it. Gore Vidal, most notably. It is certainly possible to oppose militant fundamentalist Islam and oppose American imperialism. It is even, I would contend, logical.

Last one: did you notice the bit about the American election offering advice to the Democrats? I did, and I wonder when the presidential election became an election between the Democrats and the Republicans? Last time I checked, we had a couple of people or at least politicians running for office. John Kerry must "convince the American people of [his] deadly seriousness in foreign affairs," not the Democrats. The Democratic Party is an organization to which John Kerry belongs, which he gets money and support from; sensible people much prefer a president who will put the party's interests behind the countries and even behind his own. Most people prefer this, at a gut level. I certainly prefer it, and I'd be comforted if I knew The New Republic preferred it too.

Post a Comment