Recklessness Cloaked in Righteousness

In the silence following Dick Cheney's last grumbled words in response to President Obama's speech on counterterrorism strategy last week, I could almost hear the clicking of thousands of keyboards as they erupted in a cacophony of punditry. Some masterfully dissected Cheney's statements to reveal their mind-blowing inanity, while others claimed Obama is hewing closely to the Bush Administration's approach to the threat from al-Qaeda (AQ) or criticized him for not going far enough on the treatment of detainees. I was tempted to ignore the speech, consigning Cheney to the irrelevancy he deserves, but I worry that many of the responses miss an important aspect of the two speeches, and overlook why Cheney's statements are so significant. Beyond the contrasting styles and rhetorical quality of President Obama and Cheney, what we really saw were two distinct views on the threats the United States faces.

The worldview Cheney presented was distressingly familiar. America faces a shadowy enemy that hates us for who we are; no policies we enact can change this. This enemy seems ever-present, from supposed sleeper cells throughout America to the next 9/11 waiting in the wings. Despite Cheney's refusal to provide details, though, the reality of this threat is apparently undeniable. Any lack of will among the American public -- which includes debating our counterterrorism strategies -- is capitulation to the terrorists. Moreover, the failure to completely appreciate the immediate and existential nature of this threat, which justifies seemingly immoral actions in response, would invite disaster. As Cheney said, there is "no middle ground;" we must either accept that terrorism poses a threat and support the use of torture and ill-advised wars of choice, or side with the terrorists.

Obama's worldview is markedly different. First, like Bush/Cheney, he does agree that the terrorism of AQ is a serious and continuing threat. Yet, it is because of this emphasis -- rather than in spite of it -- that Obama's strongest critiques of Bush/Cheney emerge. The best way to combat this shadowy threat is to realize the uncertainty that surrounds it and admit, as Obama did, that there are "no easy answers;" what might seem the only choice to keep us safe -- such as torture -- may actually be counterproductive. Moreover, the very severity of this threat calls for an affirmation of those American values that Cheney seems to think get in the way. As Obama said, our values are our greatest weapon in winning over potential AQ supporters. This is more than a tactical difference; it reveals the distinct worldview in which Obama is operating. The goals of AQ are incommensurable with liberal democratic values, and we will never win over hardcore AQ members. Yet, we can undermine their support by demonstrating our commitment to -- and the benefits that arise from -- those values, thus allowing room for more nuanced strategies than Cheney's invade-and-torture or surrender dichotomy.

Of the two worldviews, Obama's is the more accurate and more likely to produce effective counterterrorism policies. Cheney laughably criticized Obama for "recklessness cloaked in righteousness;" laughably because that phrase can easily describe most of the Bush/Cheney Administration's many failures and abuses. A worldview that admits uncertainty and nuance is part of the very American tradition -- beginning with the Federalist Papers -- of checking human ambition and fallibility, it is also inextricably tied to a strong foreign policy. Moreover, Obama's view of the threat from terrorism is more accurate, based on facts and rational analysis. Approaches to the struggle with terrorism that are instead based on ideological zealotry -- such as Cheney's -- are doomed to failure.

There is the very real possibility, however, that Cheney's worldview is more potent politically. The charge of being "weak on terrorism" still terrifies legislators, as seen in Senate Democrats' recent abandonment of Obama's effort to close Guantanamo; a return to the effective fear-mongering of the Bush/Cheney years is a distinct possibility. Progressives must have the courage to support Obama's policies, through the same strategy he is so ably pursuing. President Obama draws explicitly on true American values, tying his counterterrorism policies to our tradition of rule of law and transparency; as seen in the McCarthy-era, fear-mongering is powerful, but Americans soon realize what it is that makes this nation so majestic. Also, his policies are not ad hoc initiatives or political triangulation. They represent a coherent set of beliefs about how the world works, a worldview that is our best chance to both maintain our security and ensure the United States of America remains the greatest country in the world.

Comments

[OptimusMaximus]

You people are unbelievably naive.

Never, in the history of war, has the winner fought successfully by evaluating their deeds and deciding on their course of action based on whether or not those deeds/actions would "make the enemy mad" or "aid the enemy in recruitment".

The winners base their analysis on getting information on enemy plans, thwarting those plans, and going on offense to crush the enemy. The only lasting peace is one obtained by crushing the enemy. We lost more people in 9/11 than we did at Pearl Harbor. We should prosecute this war with the same vigor we prosecuted WWII.

Oh, but I forgot...none of you want to win, indeed you don't believe there is a significant threat. I pray you are correct, but fear you are sadly misled.

What law did waterboarding supposedly break. Geneva convention? Does not apply, as these are non-uniformed combatants that are not signatories to the convention. US laws? Are you telling me our military use waterboarding to train our US troops in interrogation resistance, but it's against the law to use the same procedures on captured terrorists?

Your only argument is to declare waterboarding is torture, ergo illegal. You can make that claim, but it doesn't make it legally so. If you are successful in getting a legal opinon to retroactively declare waterboarding torture, I hope and believe Ms. Pelosi will be brought up on accessory to torture charges. That would certainly be "karmic" justice.

[DRaymond]

Indeed the fundamental worldview difference is whether our morals and values are our greatest strength in the conflict or whether they are impediments that we no longer can afford in light of this threat.

But Cheney has two other goals. The first is to set a rhetorical frame for whenever the next significant attack against american interests occurs, even if it is decades from now. He wants those future neocons to be able to shout "See, If Obama hadn't closed Gitmo and stopped torture this wouldn't have happened! Cheney predicted this would happen!

The second goal Cheney has is to reopen arguments that he had lost in the second Bush term. Bush had already decided that Gitmo would have to be closed sooner rather than later. Bush had already agreed to stop torture. Bush had already closed the black sites. Bush had already agreed to a status of forces agreement that would get us completely out of Iraq. Cheney wants to insure that the arguments he won in the first term, and not the ones that he lost in the second term, define the Bush presidency.

[OptimusMaximus]

As one of our former supreme court justices said, "Democracy is not a suicide pact". We do have the right, and the duty, to defend ourselves. We do not have to be politically correct in the prosecution of war. Politically correct prosecution of the war gets more of our sons and daughters in the military killed than would otherwise be the case, because it drags out the conclusion of the war.

If you want to see real torture, visit some of the available websites and watch what they do to our civilians like Daniel Pearl, or their own citizens in Iran, or Afghanistan under the Taliban, or Iraq under Saddam, or most any other state under a Muslim form of government.

And you are correct. Cheney is doing exactly the right thing by pointing out that the abandonment of those policies that have worked in keeping us safe since 9/11 from another domestic attack puts the blame squarely on the current administration should we have another attack on Obama's watch.

[lemekid]

As a foreigner, let me provide my analysis regarding Obama and Cheney.

What Obama recognizes is that without morality and the rule of law, the US is nothing. You can't go around preaching to the world to follow the law, or do this and that, without even following the very thing you want others to do.

In Cheney's case, he is just a chicken hawk.

[OptimusMaximus]

Well, if you don't have a good argument against cheney's positions, you can certainly stoop to name calling, but don't expect that to persuade the grown ups to adopt your position....

[Puller58]

At the end of the day, judge the POTUS after 4 years, not 4 months.

[Hopeington]

To address that last paragraph... there is NO" very real possibility, however, that Cheney's world view is more potent politically." He's a civilian!! No longer a part of this administration. He is no longer of any consequence. No matter what Cheney says, he can change nothing, after all, President Obama is the one leading the country. And, like he said, he's the one the reads the daily briefs now, not Cheney.
Cheney's hands are tied and I don't think he's likin it too much.

[Crissy Patters]

Under Bush/Cheney they were warned and they did nothing to protect us. Their way of doing things increased our enemies and put us in danger from more enemies. They started an illegal war, that helped to break our economy and didn't go after the people who attacked up. We were fighting in Iraq when they knew our enemy was in Afghanistan. They left office with us fighting two wars and having to begn another to address the real enemy.

POTUS has my support throughout his first, but hopefully two terms because, unless he changes drastically, every decision he makes is for the majority.

[judiNJ]

I have always supported President Obama's world view. After all, he is far more sophisticated than those good old boys like Cheney and Rummy. Also, they ran Bush for the first 6 years. Cheney can't stand the fact that the President is standing up to him and he can't stand it that GW started turning away from him at the end, even refusing to pardon Scotter Libby . He is a bitter, scared, ugly old man.

[Solja]

I have never wavered in supporting the President. Besides, it's been 4 months! I didn't work my butt off to get him in there to abandon and attack him when he made a decision. I got my POTUS's back!

[Hopeington]

co sign !!!!

[dfranz]

As Dick Cheney has probably often said, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that someone isn't following you."