What's In The WaPo Water?

The Washington Post editorial page presents two editorials today right out of Mother Jones or The Nation, and it's symptomatic of the backlash by the folks inside the Beltway against this Administration. The first is from, of all people, George Will, who makes about the most obvious point to come out of last week's thwarted terrorist plot, one I've made continually in its wake:

The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

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."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

Will takes a shot at the blogosphere at the end, attacking a straw man that believes "terrorist actions are justified by US policies" (believed by almost nobody). But this is a masterful editorial, one that acknowledges that it's not a question of patriotism or anti-Americanism that characterizes the debate over the war on terror, but a question of tactics. And the British action last week is strong evidence that tactically speaking, fighting terror with human intelligence and old-fashioned detective work rather than Cruise missiles and torture is what works.

On the same page of the Post, there's an editorial about George Allen's deplorable comments yesterday in Virginia:

"MY FRIENDS, we're going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas," Sen. George F. Allen told a rally of Republican supporters in Southwest Virginia last week. "And it's important that we motivate and inspire people for something." Whereupon Mr. Allen turned his attention to a young campaign aide working for his Democratic opponent -- a University of Virginia student from Fairfax County who was apparently the only person of color present -- and proceeded to ridicule him.

Let's consider which positive, constructive or inspirational ideas Mr. Allen had in mind when he chose to mock S.R. Sidarth of Dunn Loring, who was recording the event with a video camera on behalf of James Webb, the Democratic nominee for the Senate seat Mr. Allen holds. The idea that holding up minorities to public scorn in front of an all-white crowd will elicit chortles and guffaws? (It did.) The idea that a candidate for public office can say "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia!" to an American of Indian descent and really mean nothing offensive by it? (So insisted Mr. Allen's aides.) Or perhaps the idea that bullying your opponents and calling them strange names -- Mr. Allen twice referred to Mr. Sidarth as "Macaca" -- is within the bounds of decency on the campaign trail?

The editorial is actually generous towards Allen, claiming that "We have no inkling as to what Mr. Allen meant by "Macaca," though we rather doubt his campaign's imaginative explanation that it was somehow an allusion to Mr. Sidarth's hairstyle, a mullet." I thought the same thing, that it was a made-up generic word for a foreigner, until I started to realize that "macaca" is close to "macaque," which is not only French for monkey, but a recognized slur in North Africa, the birthplace of... George Allen's mother! And Allen also speaks French, though don't expect him to use that in his resume. Allen has an unfortunate history of wearing Confederate buttons, displaying a noose over a tree at the Virginia governor's mansion, et al. This slur would be right in line, and he figured nobody in his audience would know what he was talking about, so maybe he could say it with impunity.

But despite this, the Washington Post should be credited for having the sensibility to print the truth without the Republican spin.