2004 Revisited

The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign made a big deal out of John Kerry saying that we have to get terrorism down to the level where it's a "nuisance." It was a deliberate misinterpretation, but their argument was that treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue was insufficient to the BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR WAY OF LIFE ZOMG EVAH!!!!1!

They're ramping up the same argument in the wake of this Barack Obama interview:

TAPPER: Speaking of the Supreme Court, you applauded the decision that the Supreme Court made last week. The Bush administration says, no matter what people think about other programs, other policies they've initiated, there has not been a terrorist attack within the U.S. since 9/11. And they say the reason that is, is because of the domestic programs, many of which you opposed, the NSA surveillance program, Guantanamo Bay, and other programs.

How do you know that they're wrong? It's not possible that they're right?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind I haven't opposed, for example, the national security surveillance program, the NSA program. What I've said that we can do it within the constraints of our civil liberties and our Constitution.

TAPPER: They disagree, though.

OBAMA: Well, but the fact that they disagree does not mean that they're right on this. What it means is, is that they have been willing to skirt basic protections that are in our Constitution, that our founders put in place.

And it is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. And there has been no evidence on their part that we can't.

And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims."

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

I tried to offer the full context. The detractors that the McCain campaign brought out yesterday certainly didn't. James Woolsey, who was last seen ginning up war in Iraq based on Iranian agent Ahmad Chalabi, called Obama naive and delusional. Pot, kettle, etc. Rudy Giuliani was roused from a 9-11 Film Festival to accuse Obama of having a 9-10 mindset. Better than having 9-11 withdrawal syndrome. But here's the statement, which bears closer reading:

"Throughout this campaign, I have been very concerned that the Democrats want to take a step back to the failed policies that treated terrorism solely as a law enforcement matter rather than a clear and present danger. Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security."

Now, nobody actually said that they want to treat terrorism "solely" as a law enforcement matter. Obama's call to bomb Al Qaeda outlets in Pakistan once got a stern rebuke from McCain. And the real point is that every Administration uses a mix of military action and law enforcement, including this one. The FBI is involved in counter-terrorism. Local law enforcement is involved. Rudy's beloved NYPD has a huge counter-terrorism threat center. The Bush-McCain strategy, however, backgrounds law enforcement in favor of imperial dominance. So I agree with Yglesias' provocative point:

But of course the GOP philosophy has for years now been that we need to hit the terrorists hard where they aren't, while letting problems in Central Asia fester because they're difficult. Meanwhile, the "old days" Goldfarb is talking about never existed. In retrospect, I think we all wish the Clinton administration had been somewhat more aggressive in its approach to al-Qaeda, but as I note in the book more Americans (and many, many more people overall) have died as a result of the idiotic response to 9/11 that Bush and McCain embraced than actually died on that day.

The shortcomings of previous policy are no reason to go implement a worse policy. Military force will play a role in U.S. counterterrorism strategy, but it simply has a limited utility in dealing with the problem. If you don't recognize that, you wind up blundering down the Bush/Rumsfeld/McCain/Feith road of sending troops to Iraq because Iraq contains good military targets rather than coming up with an actual strategy for fighting terrorism.

Obama hit back against this pretty hard yesterday, accusing McCain of playing politics with national security, and using "terrorism as a club to make people afraid." It's kind of a meta point, but it's far better than not addressing it at all. And I loved this point:

Reminded that the Republican playbook worked in the 2004 presidential race, Obama countered: "Well, it's 2008."

People know failure when they see it. No matter how much you tell them it's sunny, they feel the rain on their heads.

UPDATE: More on this flare-up in today's Washington Post. It's actually a pretty solid article.