More

John McQuaid

John McQuaid

Posted: January 3, 2008 02:05 PM

Goodbye GWOT, Hello ... Huckabee?


The Global War on Terror -- at least, George W. Bush's version of it -- is fading fast into the political woodwork. It united the country for a short time post 9/11. For two election cycles it united a narrow majority of voters behind Bush and the Republican Congress. Even as dissatisfaction among Democrats and independents finally killed that majority, Republican candidates were betting it would continue to be the single, overriding thing that would unite their beleaguered party.

But as the rise of Huckabee and the decline of Rudy show, the war on terror has lost its salience as a campaign issue, even among those who are supposed to be most focused on it.

People won't be voting for Huckabee based on his credibility as terrorist-fighter. Rudy Giulani bet that his maximalist approaches on war and authoritarianism would make GOP voters overlook his inconvenient positions on abortion, his corruption problems, and his sensible actions on immigration as mayor. No dice. McCain is now rising, and his hawkishness is second to almost none, but he's committed the GWOT heresy of opposing torture.

This isn't to say that the threat of terrorism isn't an important issue -- it is. Rather, the demagogic approach of the past six years now resonates only among a minority of the minority party. The notion that personal safety trumps everything, including the Constitution, our treaty obligations, and basic notions of human dignity -- the precise inversion of "Live Free or Die" -- was politically and bureaucratically convenient for the Bush administration. But too facile to maintain its credibility, in the end.

The question is, now what? We've been fed so much BS I don't think anyone knows why we haven't been hit since 9/11, or what the genuine "threat level" should be. Incredibly, there has never been substantive national policy discussion on how best to prevent terror attacks, and how that fits with a broader American strategy in the world. As Robert Dallek told Bloomberg News:

This is roughly like the time of the beginning of the Cold War, when the country was searching for a wise policy to meet the international challenges. That's really the big issue of this election.

Maybe now we'll finally get that debate.

Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid

 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:27 AM on 01/04/2008
Huckabee's win does not have a larger meaning than Iowa--he got the evangelical turnout, and populism (even Huckabee's fake version) sells well in the midwest. It was a contest tailor-made for him. He might win a state or two in the South, but that's as far as he goes.
06:26 PM on 01/03/2008
The terrorist, as you call them, are not boogeymen bent on hurting Americas for the sake of inflicting Chaos. They do not exist to rob us of our freedoms. To the contrary, they do not see us as a particuarly free cuntry. They are not evil men beant on perpetrating evil. They are simply men who feeel supremely justified in doing evil deeds.

If you want to deal with terorism, or any major international problem, you must cease to view the "enmy" as a souless monster whose only motivation is making our lives miserable.

We need to deal with the fact that we have a history of middle eastern foreign policies which have harmed millions of people. Now millions of people view us as oppressors or a nation of tyrants. Thanks to our suburb foreign policy changes post 911. That sentiment is shared by the world in general. ITs shame when even our european allies view us as barbaic, arrogan cowboys.

We need substantial foreign policy changes. We need to reinstate a foregin policy fo self-determination and play a mediating neutral roll in ISraeli-Arab peace talks. WE have the money and power to end that conflict if we make sure that each side gets their fair due. We need to not have military bases in Iraq (or Saudia arabia) and we definitely need to have policies towards iran that do not include regime change.

If we make simple policy changes to foster self=determination while having a strong hand in protecting the human rights of those residing in the middle east, then the argumentsof the radicals will loose out in the face of growing evidence of US being an agent of national, political, and human growth.

What we are doing now is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
05:43 PM on 01/03/2008
CNN today (Blitzer and Friends) described the Mitt/Huck difference as Corporatism vs. Populism. That's what it is for me, so I support Huck, if I vote Republican. I support Edwards if I vote Democratic. I could also support Kuncinich if he were making it.

Liberals do not seem to grasp that there are other issues than "Religion" in this debate. You will be sorry that you didn't understand, if we get another Corporate cheerleader from either party.

Corporations are not all bad--it's just that we've let them squeeze the life out of non-elites.

The non-elites seem to be getting it as they gasp for breath.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LoRiseAntlers
04:24 PM on 01/03/2008
What I think is being missed here is the fact that the fundies have reasserted themselves and are lining up behind the Huckster,hoping he'll lead them into the Apocalyptic theocracy that Shrub failed to deliver.Pay attention to Huck anwhat he says.He's a scary man.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
mouselion
04:08 PM on 01/03/2008
The terrorists win when you change your life because of their disasters. They win when a nation becomes less free in order to feel more secure. They win when you go on wild goose-chases around the world that actually make it easier for them to wreak havoc.

Perhaps more people are beginning to wake up to this. We didn't have strong leadership to tell us this. It took costly shenanigans for many to see it.

Live free or die. Indeed.
Give me liberty or give me death.
03:49 PM on 01/03/2008
The only thing we have to fear are the fearmongers.
03:16 PM on 01/03/2008
I have wondered for a long time why Rudi was regarded as such a savior on 9/11. He didn't do anything to prevent it, mitigate it, or lessen it. The one thing I will give him credit for is he didn't leap into a plane and careen all over the country looking for a hiding place like Bushie did. However Rudi didn't do anything that thousands of New Yorkers didn't do. Yes he wandered the streets trying to figure out what to do but so did thousands of other citizen. Why did being the mayor of a city that had buildings attacked give him some special edge in the presidential race?? Big mystery to me. Of course I have wondered why Bushie is regarded well after his frantic search for a hiding place after 9-11. His penultimate action seems to be reading a speech, written by others.
Maybe for Bushie that is some achievement but shouldn't we expect more from a president?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
02:17 PM on 01/03/2008
I know why we haven't been hit since 9/11. Look at how long it took them to plan 9/11 after the first WTC bombing. I remember bushco(tm) making the claim in 04, and in 06, that we were safer since we hadn't been hit since 9/11. I thought then, and I think now, that we haven't been hit because they are looking for what they think is a good way to do it, since they won't use planes into buildings next time, nor do I think that they will copy Oklahoma City. They will find a way, sadly. I just hope that we don't go back into bushworld when they do hit us again.