by Dane Roberts
Daily Lobo guest columnist
The latest howl from the Bush administration and its media counterparts is that Sen. John Kerry would like to reduce the threat of terrorism until it is only a "nuisance."
This is outrageous. Who in his right mind would want terrorism to merely be a nuisance? Doesn't Kerry know any self-respecting apocalyptic American crusader wants terrorism to be an overwhelming, daily presence?
In all seriousness, this is as close as President Bush has come to acknowledging he might actually need terrorism.
After all, if terrorism were only a nuisance, there would be no national crisis to justify immense deficit spending.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
If terrorism were only a nuisance, Americans might not instinctively cling to Bush as a savior-figure in turbulent times.
Most significantly, if terrorism were only a nuisance, it would be awfully hard for Bush and the neoconservatives around him to convince Americans to support the next Iraq-style foreign adventure.
This point cannot be overstated. It's not a liberal conspiracy theory. It's a matter of public record, and if you care at all about the direction American foreign policy takes in the next four years, there are a few things you need to know.
The Bush administration neocons include Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, his undersecretary, Douglas Feith, and many of the strategists who surround them. They have strong influences on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.
In 1997, they laid out a bold vision for American foreign policy with the Project for a New American Century.
They believe America should protect its global interests and pursue its goals and principles militarily and unapologetically. They favor dramatic increases in military spending and are eager to develop and use a new generation of nuclear weapons.
In a bone-chilling paper published in 2000, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," available on their Web site, they argue that a "core mission" of the U.S. military should be to "fight and decisively win four simultaneous major-theater wars."
Yes, you read that right. In 2000, they thought it would be just great if we could fight four simultaneous wars. It is significant that the mission isn't to "develop the capacity to fight four major wars, if necessary." It is simply to fight them, apparently to project our strength.
Yet they acknowledge the transformation required to achieve their goals would be slow, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
Now you know why Bush is addicted to Sept. 11 and terrorism.
Now you know why you can't take Rumsfeld's threats to hold Syria and Iran accountable for their actions during the Iraq war lightly. There has been no indication, by the way, that Rumsfeld's hubris has been checked by his gross miscalculations in Iraq.
Now you know why talk of a draft isn't so insane. Our volunteer army has been stretched to breaking by one major and one minor war, and it's safe to say the situation in Iraq isn't inspiring a groundswell of volunteers.
Now you know why Bush and his amplifiers in the media must viciously attack Kerry's hope that we can move beyond the fear of terrorism. Without the constant reminder of their Pearl Harbor, they will not be able to achieve their radical goals.
The problem is the foreign policy Bush is using to justify America's fear of terrorism was formulated before Sept. 11 and isn't particularly well suited to dealing with terrorism. It is stuck in a Cold War mentality that doesn't recognize the importance of nonstate actors.
It led us to invade Iraq, and it couldn't be clearer the Iraq war is a net loss in the war on terrorism.
It didn't stop banned weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists because there were none. It has inspired new waves of anti-American jihadis.
Kerry's foreign policy would be far better. He understands that while the war on terror "is occasionally military, but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world, the very thing this administration is worst at."
He doesn't want terrorism to radically change our lives. He knows the more overblown our reaction to terrorism, the greater the victory for terrorists. Bush and company flail against Kerry's statement because they know once Americans recognize this simple truth, their radical agenda is sunk.
