Letters to the editor

To The Editor:

Ed Koch argues that we should vote for Bush in November because of the Bush doctrine (Talking point, August 20-26, “Why Democrats should vote for President Bush”). I believe that the root of terror is the lack of opportunity for disaffected Arabs to express themselves other than through Islamic ultra-piety and anti-Western diatribes and that the solution is to introduce pluralistic democracy. At times, it requires joining the dissidents militarily to change their regime.

I wholeheartedly agree that Afghanistan and Iraq are both instances where this is appropriate. I further agree with Bush’s call to desist from our prior policy of supporting friendly repressive regimes at the expense of supporting democracy. However, I have to disagree with the notion that the president is a steadfast and decisive promoter of liberty. In Afghanistan, instead of sending our finest forces into Tora Bora, he sent the notoriously corrupt Northern Alliance with the result that Osama, Mullah Omar and their followers got away. This is not a result, as some on the left will say, of diverting attention to Iraq, since troop mobilization for Iraq had not begun by then. It is a problem of leadership. In Iraq, he left Muqtada al-Sadr alone when he began showing that he would become dangerous but was still weak enough to be dealt with. Now he is virtually in charge of Sadr City, a neighborhood of 3 million people, mostly devoted to him and willing to take up arms on his behalf. In Fallujah, he promised to exact vengeance on the terrorists in Fallujah, only to call it off just as our troops were ready to move in, opting instead for ill-equipped and ill-trained Iraqi forces who let the militants operate as they please.

The Bush record on promoting democracy elsewhere in the Arab-Muslim world looks more like the policy he decried last year of supporting friendly autocrats than support of democracy. Whether in Pakistan, Morocco, Algeria or Egypt, the message has been cooperation in the war on terror trumps all; arrest a few terrorists and you can stifle dissent as you please, at least if no American citizen is involved. Furthermore, Libya’s Khadafi has also gained significantly improved treatment without any liberalization simply by renouncing his weapons of mass destruction. In the meantime, the populations of these countries become turn to the only safe forms of dissent, Islamism and anti-westernism, thus breeding the next generation of terrorists and cynicism about America’s commitment to spread democracy.

Finally, while it is necessary to pursue the terrorists abroad, it will be a long time until they can be defeated. Until then, it will be necessary to defend the homeland. On this front, Bush has shown disinterest, whether securing nuclear material from the former Soviet Union or protecting chemical plants or port facilities at home.

My one concession is that Kerry has given problematic, albeit not completely clear signs as to not recognizing when threats abroad need to be confronted. However, as University of Chicago political scientist Daniel Drezner asked, is it better to have a well-formed policy with a fouled up policy process or a half-baked policy with a decent policy process. Drezner concluded that with a good policy process, there is a chance for a good policy to emerge, while with a poor policy process, even with a decent initial policy, would not permit corrections as necessary. That is why Kerry, despite being less than ideal, would be better for the war on terror.

Scott Smith

Defending Serra