AS THE pundits analyze who "won" the vice-presidential debate by looking at who sighed the fewest number of times, a deep undercurrent is running through liberal America. Those same pundits will tell you it's anger -- pure, sometimes irrational hatred of George W. Bush as a result of bitterness over his contested election, his perceived stupidity or plain disgust with his trademark smirk. But liberal anger comes from something more serious than partisanship or personalities: it comes from fear -- fear for America's security and future.
Normally the culture of fear is associated with the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that if America elected John Kerry, it would be more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. In his stump speech, Bush says without "proper" leadership, the world could "drift towards tragedy." De facto Republican Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., accused Kerry and the Democrats of trying to arm America's troops with "spitballs." In essence, since Republicans don't get squeamish about blowing things up, they can protect America better.
Unfortunately, Machiavellian tactics work, and fear has worked in Bush's favor for most of the campaign. Moreover, since Kerry initially supported giving Bush the carte blanche power to invade Iraq, he gave himself little room to maneuver in declaring the war in Iraq, and the Bush doctrine of preemption, a mistake. Nevertheless, a growing number of dissenters realize that attacking Iraq not only did not make us any safer, but increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack.
When the Bush administration acts like they can destroy every terrorist -- as if there is some finite number of them -- it neglects commonsense. Terror and military strikes do not live in a vacuum -- there's a Newtonian action and reaction for every American decision. Cheney decries Kerry for wanting a more "sensitive" war on terror, but sensitivity and security go hand and hand. The fact of the matter is, we can neither kill every terrorist nor invade every country that harbors them. America does not have the military power, political capital or financial resources to do so.
Sensibly fighting terror is not appeasement; at no point should America acquiesce to terrorist demands. Irrespective, to accuse al Qaeda of wanting to kill thousands of innocents simply because they "hate our freedom" is beyond absurd. As the anonymous CIA agent argues in his book, "Imperial Hubris: How the West is Losing the War on Terror," al Qaeda has specific grievances against the United States. To fight terrorism blindly based on dogmatic ideology might fit well into Bush's "I don't do nuance" mind, but regrettably, it does little to actually prevent terrorist attacks.
After it became evident that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction or significant ties to al Qaeda, the administration frantically grabbed at straws for another way to rationalize its war.One theory proposed was that the war would "shock and awe" other dictators to join America to fight against terrorism. Conservatives love to point out Libya, who allegedly disarmed out of fear after the invasion of Iraq, as evidence of the domino effect of Iraq. But, for every Libya there's an Iran, North Korea or Palestine emboldened to re-arm and acquire nuclear weapons to defend themselves. All the tanks in the world could not fight on that many fronts.
Sensible liberals don't fear Bush's foreign policy because they hate to see Halliburton get rich (although that does frustrate us), but because they fear the Bush doctrine. Sure, it sounds pleasant being able to stop "gathering threats" before they can attack. But invading sovereign countries isn't the only way, or the right way, to stop America's greatest threat: terrorism.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a country; you can't destroy it with traditional war. Over the last 50 years, Americans have learned how to dominate conventional wars, so it makes sense for Bush to fall back on traditional warfare to fight this new kind of threat. But unlike sovereign states, terrorism can never ultimately be defeated.
Invading countries -- especially those with minimal, if any, ties to al Qaeda -- is like using antibiotics to fight a virus. You don't actually destroy the menace, and even worse, they build a resistance to future attacks.
With a Bush victory, the Bush doctrine could solidify and replace our more than 225-year aversion to preemptive war. And with more terrorist threats as a consequence, Americans should fear another four years of Bush. As much as most liberals have reservations about John Kerry, at least the philosophy of preemptive war would suffer a major defeat, and Americans would never again have to go through another Iraq.
It's shocking to many Americans how little substance both Bush and Kerry have in their campaigns, despite the gravitas of their decisions. But despite the lack of substance between the two candidates, the two parties and corresponding ideologies face a critical turning point. The stakes are high, and the left is angry, but there is a profound reason for anger: fear for the safety of all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.
Patrick Harvey is a Cavalier Daily Opinion editor. He can be reached at pharvey@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | YesterdayAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | December 16, 2024It is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
