George Will: Kerry was right on terrorism

In pursuing the struggle against Al Qaeda-style terrorism, one of the main "debates" (the word gets quotes because it's more like a shouting match, or rather one side shouting and the other mumbling) is whether most of the action should involve high-firepower military force, or ramped-up intelligence and police work. (The idea that we should actually change our policies and actions so as not to piss so many people off doesn't even seem to be on the radar screen.) John Kerry favored the intelligence/law enforcement option in his 2004 presidential campaign, and was hit with all the usual smears by the Republicans, who mindlessly champion the warmaking. I say "mindless" because no failure of their cause seems to dissuade them from their belief in it.

The foiling of the most recent terror plot seems to favor Kerry's approach, as George Will lays out in his most recent column (HT: Greenwald):

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

The Republicans are of course, trying to push the same buttons that they pushed in 2004, but there's evidence that this won't work this time. I've already mentioned that a poll now shows that Americans trust Dems more on fighting terrorism than Republicans. Republican credibility on national security issues has taken an enormous beating from their inability to acknowledge reality in Iraq. Of course for some, their loyalty to Bush is theological rather than political, so no amount of failure in this world will dissuade them. But I'm optimistic that the theocons alone do not constitute a large enough foundation on which to base Republican power.

The fatuous notion that Republican = Strong on Security still infects the minds of many, and constitutes one of those underlying narratives that shapes a lot of our media stories. Greenwald expresses the hope that journalists will wake up to this:

If George Will can come out and say that John Kerry was right about how best to approach terrorism and the Bush approach does nothing but increases it, then perhaps we can soon reach the point where national journalists will understand that there is nothing "strong" about wanting more and more wars, and nothing "weak" about opposing warmongering and advocating more substantive, rational and responsible methods for combating terrorism.

Anyone rational can see that our invasion of Iraq did not make us "safer." Nor will attacking Syria and/or Iran or fueling more proxy wars in the Middle East make us any "safer." Quite plainly, those measures have had, and will continue to have, the opposite effect. And all the while, we neglect the genuinely effective methods for protecting against terrorism because those methods are boring and unappealing and unexciting to the increasingly crazed warriors looking for militaristic glory and slaughter for its own sake. Untold benefits will accrue if journalists can finally understand that whatever adjectives accurately describe such individuals -- especially those in the Bush administration and their Congressional loyalists -- "strong" is not one of them.

UPDATE (well, it's not really an update, because I haven't posted yet): Sullivan links to the same column. He points out the tensions involved in using democratization as a tool in the war on fundamentalist terrorism: most people agree that in the long term, it's necessary. But in the short term, it can produce some pretty unfavorable results (e.g. Hamas). (I would also mention that many Islamic terrorists get radicalized while living in the West, or because of contact with it.) Sullivan also displays his characteristic stance of realizing that Republicans were wrong, but still being repulsed by those, like Kerry, who were right.