Something to Remember

Jonah Goldberg's column on whether Iraq has created more Jihadists is a must-read...

After 9/11, there were voices on the left warning that an attack on Afghanistan would only perpetuate the dreaded "cycle of violence." Today, Democrats tout their support of that "good" war as proof they aren't soft on terrorism. Fair enough, I suppose. But guess what? That war made us less safe too - if the measure of such things is "creating more terrorists." A Gallup poll taken in nine Muslim nations in February 2002 found that more than three-fourths of respondents considered the liberation of Afghanistan unjustifiable. A mere 9 percent supported U.S. actions. That goes for famously moderate Turkey, where opposition to the U.S. ran three to one, and in Pakistan, where a mere one in 20 respondents took the American side. In other words, before Iraq became the cause celebre of jihadists, Afghanistan was. Does that mean we shouldn't have toppled the Taliban?

...Every serious analysis of the Islamic world today describes a genuine tectonic shift in a vast civilization, an upheaval that cuts across social, religious and demographic lines. This phenomenon dwarfs transient issues such as the Iraq war. Are we to believe that once-moderate and relatively secular Morocco is slipping toward extremism because we toppled Baathist Saddam Hussein? Do we believe that the mobs who burned Danish embassies in response to a cartoon wouldn't have done so if only President Bush had gone for the 18th, 19th or 20th U.N. resolution on Iraq? Millions of young men yearning for meaning and craving outlets for their rage would have become computer programmers and dental hygienists if only Hussein's statue still towered over central Baghdad? Would the pope's comments spark nothing but thoughtful and high-minded debate from the Arab street if only Al Gore or John Kerry were in office?

Iraq is the excuse du jour for jihadists. But the important factor is that these are young men looking for an excuse. If you live your life calculating that it's a mistake to do anything that might prompt murderers and savages to act like murderers and savages, you've basically decided to live under their thumb and surrender your civilization in the process.

That last point is one too many people forget today. Freedom's too easy to sacrifice in the interests of being safe in the short-term. Those who argue against impositions to our civil liberties would do well to recall that, as would those who argue in favor of sacrificing civil liberties for more security. The balance is difficult to find, but Western society's trying to find it, while the extremists in the Middle East want to drag us back several centuries. The Bull Moose nails this point from the left...

The most reactionary force on the planet is Jihadist terrorism. While some liberals fear that the American religious right would return America to the 1950's, the Islamic fascists look to the seventh century as their model. All values, ideals and freedoms that are treasured by liberals would be repealed and eliminated.

Yet, it is the right that is usually identified as the most adamant opponents of the Jihadists. Indeed, the left has increasingly embraced an amoral realism that is more in the conservative tradition than that of liberal internationalism.

Opposition to the Iraq war has much to do with this role reversal. But, it is far from clear that the top priority of the left is the war against the Jihadists. The left even rejects the labeling them fascists even though they advance a totalitarian ideology that is animated by a nihilistic hatred of "the other". It is easy to rant and rail against the American religious right, but where is the sound and fury against the radical Islamists who once again attempted through their violence to intimidate reasoned debate in the West?

...America remains the great hope of liberalism in a world threatened by reactionaries who seek to repeal civilization and return us to the seventh century. For the sake of the soul of progressivism, it is time for liberals to speak these truths.

I'd love to see the Democratic Party re-emerge with voices similar to Cold Warriors like Truman, JFK and Scoop Jackson on foreign policy (and to be fair, I'd also like to see the GOP hew closer to the conservatism of Ronald Reagan on domestic issues). I don't doubt that I would have disagreed with policy proposals put forth by those Democrats during the Cold War, but I don't know that I would fear trusting them with our nation's security. In 2004, I feared trusting John Kerry with that job, and I definitely don't trust Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Hopefully, that will have changed by 2008 -- I doubt that I would vote for a Democrat, but it would be nice to know that I can consider it.