The World Isn’t So Dark

The people of this country need to know that the diehard neo-conservative elements and all-knowing ???family values??? faction of the Republican Party are doing them a disservice. They have purposely decided to use Americans??? legitimate fear of terrorist attacks as a sort of mechanism to acquire and keep political power. If these Republicans were truly and honestly concerned about fighting terrorism they would consider the following:

1. Acknowledge that the fight against terrorism is a national fight that is not limited to those who profess to be the most or only patriotic, country-loving Americans living the so-called Red States. After all, when the terrorists decided to strike on 9-11 they did not think about striking Red versus Blue states. In fact the majority of those who died on that day were killed when the two airplanes struck the World Trade Center Towers in New York City, the financial capital of a Blue state and the nation.

2. Admit that the fight against terrorism is very much unlike that against an organized armed force of another country, as in the course of a regular war between two nations or factions. As others have pointed out, terrorists live and work among regular everyday people. We often go to the same schools, social gatherings, and places to shop for food, clothing and other things. Often one cannot tell who is a terrorist even if he or she lives next door to one. In order for the government, any government, to be successful in keeping an eye on people who are engaging in terrorist activities (so as to stop them before the wreak havoc) it needs the cooperation of ordinary people who live next door to these evil people. This cooperation won???t be very forthcoming in a situation where the government antagonizes the citizenry or paints one segment of the population as being ???weak on terrorism???.

3. Refrain from the use of descriptive and other words and phrases which lump and/or link large segments or populations with a very few people who are hell-bent on engaging in evil-doing; it does not help in the fight against terrorism. I am referring to such phrases as ???Islamic terrorists???, ???Islamo-facists???, etc. After all when the Irish Republican Army waged a thirty-plus year war against the British during which it carried out hundreds if not thousands of bombings and other terrorist activities, we never heard the phrase Catholic, Protestant or for that matter Christian terrorists of the IRA. These glamorous phrases, like those used to refer to terrorists who profess to be followers of Islam, have a negative impact on the fight to defeat terrorism as they tend to alienate large groups of people (like 1.3 billion Muslims) who would otherwise help (often in their capacities as ordinary people).

4. The fight against terrorism is not won overnight. It is often a long, drawn out struggle. Ask the British (vs. the IRA), the Spaniards (vs. ETA) and the Germans (vs. the Baader-Meinhof Gang).

The people of this country need to know that the diehard neo-conservative elements and all-knowing ???family values??? faction of the Republican Party are doing them a disservice. They have purposely decided to use Americans??? legitimate fear of terrorist attacks as a sort of mechanism to acquire and keep political power. If these Republicans were truly and honestly concerned about fighting terrorism they would consider the following:

1. Acknowledge that the fight against terrorism is a national fight that is not limited to those who profess to be the most or only patriotic, country-loving Americans living is the so-called Red States. After all, when the terrorists decided to strike on 9-11 they did not think about striking Red versus Blue states. In fact the majority of those who died on that day were killed when the two airplanes struck the World Trade Center Towers in New York City, the financial capital of a Blue state and the nation.

2. Admit that the fight against terrorism is very much unlike that against an organized armed force of another country, as in the course of a regular war between two nations or factions. As others have pointed out, terrorists live and work among regular everyday people. We often go to the same schools, social gatherings, and places to shop for food, clothing and other things. Often one cannot tell who is a terrorist even if he or she lives next door to one. In order for the government, any government, to be successful in keeping an eye on people who are engaging in terrorist activities (so as to stop them before the wreak havoc) it needs the cooperation of ordinary people who live next door to these evil people. This cooperation won???t be very forthcoming in a situation where the government antagonizes the citizenry or paints one segment of the population as being ???weak on terrorism???.

3. Refrain from the use of descriptive and other words and phrases which lump and/or link large segments or populations with a very few people who are hell-bent on engaging in evil-doing; it does not help in the fight against terrorism. I am referring to such phrases as ???Islamic terrorists???, ???Islamo-facists???, etc. After all when the Irish Republican Army waged a thirty-plus year war against the British during which it carried out hundreds if not thousands of bombings and other terrorist activities, we never heard the phrase Catholic, Protestant or for that matter Christian terrorists of the IRA. These glamorous phrases, like those used to refer to terrorists who profess to be followers of Islam, have a negative impact on the fight to defeat terrorism as they tend to alienate large groups of people (like 1.3 billion Muslims) who would otherwise help (often in their capacities as ordinary people).

4. The fight against terrorism is not won overnight. It is often a long, drawn out struggle. Ask the British (vs. the IRA), the Spaniards (vs. ETA) and the Germans (vs. the Baader-Meinhof Gang).

The people of this country need to know that the diehard neo-conservative elements and all-knowing ???family values??? faction of the Republican Party are doing them a disservice. They have purposely decided to use Americans??? legitimate fear of terrorist attacks as a sort of mechanism to acquire and keep political power. If these Republicans were truly and honestly concerned about fighting terrorism they would consider the following:

1. Acknowledge that the fight against terrorism is a national fight that is not limited to those who profess to be the most or only patriotic, country-loving Americans living is the so-called Red States. After all, when the terrorists decided to strike on 9-11 they did not think about striking Red versus Blue states. In fact the majority of those who lived on that day were killed when the two airplanes struck the World Trade Center Towers in New York City, the financial capital of a Blue state and the nation.

2. Admit that the fight against is very much unlike that against an organized armed force of another country, as in the course of a regular war between two nations or factions. As others have pointed out, terrorists live and work among regular everyday people. We often go to the same schools, social gatherings, and places to shop for food, clothing and other things. Often one cannot tell who is a terrorist even though he or she lives next door to one. In order for the government, any government, to be successful in keeping an eye on people who are engaging in terrorist activities it needs the cooperation of ordinary people who live next door to these evil people. This cooperation won???t be very forthcoming in a situation where the government antagonizes the citizenry or paints on segment of the population as being ???weak on terrorism???. Also, the use of descriptive and other words and phrases which lump and/or link large segments or populations with a very few people who are hell-bent on engaging in evil-doing does not help in the fight against terrorism. I am referring to such words as ???Islamic terrorists???, ???Islamo-facists???, etc. After all when the Irish Republican Army waged a thirty-plus year war against the British during which it carried out hundreds if not thousands of bombings and other terrorist activities, we never heard the phrase Catholic, Protestant or for that matter Christian terrorists of the IRA. These glamorous phrases, like those used to refer to terrorists who profess to be followers of Islam, have a negative impact as they tend to alienate large groups of people (like 1.3 billion Muslims) who would otherwise help (often in their capacities as ordinary people) in the fight against terrorism.

3. The fight against terrorism is not won overnight. It is often a long, very long drawn out struggle. Ask the British (vs. the IRA), the Spaniards (vs. ETA) and the Germans (vs. the Baader-Meinhof Gang).

Excellent article and excellent historical analysis. Fear mongering has led this nation to lose it's credibility worldwide. It has led us to an unnecessary war in Iraq and a destabilization of the world politically and econcomically. We have abused our world superpower status by overreacting, miscalculating, and abandoning diplomacy and international relations. In the 21st century we are a war mongering nation threatening pre-emptive strikes at whim, with a bellicose foriegn policy. We need to transcend partisanship, reject fear mongering, and return to unbiased intelligence in our foreign policy.

It was interesting to read your comment about Kennedy outflanking Nixon in 1960. My recollection generally is that Republican politicians had no equal as "Chicken Littles" in describing dangers and bankrolling projects like the missle shield. I'm ready for a moderate and mature view of the threats facing us, one that takes into account the cost in men and resources.

Well, America worries about the wrong things and, therefore, worries itself into oblivion. Way to go!

It's great that liberal pundits want to blame leaders for being too worried about threats. If they want to do that, they shouldn't then use unexpected events like 9/11 and the Georgian crisis to then attack their partisan targets.

As usual the pundits want it both ways. Before the crisis, they say "What are you so worried about, dummy?" afterwards they say "Why didn't you stop that from happening, dummy?". This absurd lack of understanding stems from the fact that most pundits have never really done anything and have no experience in a real leadership role. They seem to think that yapping about decision making is the same as actually making a decision. Maybe that's why they like Obama so much.

Wow! After long and careful consideration a liberal pundit has determined that the Democrat is right and the Republican is wrong.

Stop the presses.

Absolutely!...right on! We have over-reacted to many of the current situations in the world. The Iraq war is a prime example. A trillion dollar war that has cost us another trillion dollars in increased oil costs...thousands of dead, dying and damaged soldiers...and for what? Iraq will, at best be an ally if Iran, and, at worst, will return to a strongman type of leadership. It most certainly will NOT be western style democracy. What a cost we have paid! The Israel lobby in this country has done a terrible disservive to the American people. Fighting Israel's enemies is not our job, but, the neocon's and the Israel lobby make us beleive it is. Look at McCain's advisers...nearly all neocon's and members of the Israel lobby Wake up America...protecting Israel is not our job! McCain says "Country First." Yet he votes and acts to protect Israel's borders while Arizona' borders are awash in illegal immigrants. That's not "Country First"...that is "Another Country First."

As a retired Army officer, I'm a bit embarrassed to concur with the various exaggerations that we have been told were out there. There's always some boogie man under the bed, and some very smart people have taken the bait.
One doesn't want to be caught off-guard, but that is exactly the point. The USS Cole, the '93 WTC bombing, and the other al-Qaeda attacks were successfully because we were looking over their heads at the bigger, overblown threats that didn't really exist. If you stop reacting to the boogie man, then your vision clears to that you can actually see the real threats.

As a retired Army officer, I'm a bit embarrassed to concur with the various exaggerations that we have been told were out there. There's always some boogie man under the bed, and some very smart people have taken the bait.
One doesn't want to be caught off-guard, but that is exactly the point. The USS Cole, the '93 WTC bombing, and the other al-Qaeda attacks were successfully because we were looking over their heads at the bigger, overblown threats that didn't really exist. If you stop reacting to the boogie man, then your vision clears to that you can actually see the real threats.

Fareed Zakaria has gravitas with readers of Newsweek - who all gather to hear the latest chrono of how bad the foreign policy of America truly is. Zakaria strongly recommends a less aggressive US foreign policy and wholeheartedly endorses Obama's policy du jour of targeting Al-Qaeda and assumes the rest of the Muslim world can be co-opted with economic aid. This is the same sort of rubbish the Clinton administration followed and it gave us the first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the Cole, several attacks on our Diplomatic personnel overseas, and the Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. Zakaria assumes that Obama's minimizing of the insidious nature of the current threat is the smart move. If we cut the head off the snake (Osama Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda) , the body will die and transform itself into a a benign "love the USA" partner in solving the world's problems. It is precisely this naive "head-in-the sand" roadmap that Carter and Clinton, and even Bush 41 followed that got us into this mess in the first place. There is no substitute for vigilance. Zakaria would be better served turning his criticism toward his native India. India has been a vociferous critic of the US since they helped drum Taiwan out of the UN and has not been a helpful partner in helping stabilize the situation with Pakistan where most of the terrorists now reside.

People who say Obama is an empty suit with no substance refuse to even listen to him, or read his statements and policy ideas. Period. DONE. There is no other definition of these GOP talking point political hacks.
If anyone examines McCain 's horrid policies, they conclude his are seriously lacking any common sense.
ALL EXPERTS not paid by the GOP, have already weighed in on his Healthcare proposal - its the same dumb unworkable idea thats been kicked around the senate for 25 years. His foreign policy is war first, screw up second.
His energy policy is a fraud, there is nothing for alternative energy, and huge new welfare payments to the most profitable and richest industry in america, the OIL industry.
His Economic policy has been Panned by every Economic Expert that has reviewed it. And no the industry doesnt consider Gramm an expert on anything but fraud, waste, bad policy and self gratification.

How does someone GET like this IDIOT? Obamas' world view is more realistic? Really. Like what? What part of the Great EMPTY SUIT is more realistic? That we can TALK our way out of things? That's the answer to everyrhing. We're gonna talk. That's because, that's ALL the Liberals can do. They talk. They're B.S.Artists. They NEVER accept the world AS IT IS. They are joined at the hip, with Leftst FOOLS, such as Saul Alinski. They want to go at the world, "as it should be". Does that sound realistic? Or maybe they'ld like to go through the United Nations, to solve all of Earths' problems? Like John Kerry. WHAT has the U.N. done, in the last 10 years, besides STEAL MONEY. Besides RAPING WOMEN and CHILDREN with their "PEACEKEEPERS"? Zakaria is PATHETIC. His Librarians' look at life is a joke. And if his, and that other pointy headed, EMPTY SUITS' philosophy, were to be implemented, this world would BURN. Any Questions?

Zakaria can only be taken seriously by Newsweek and its dwindling band of readers. His understanding of and grasp of real world dangers is almost sophomoric.