IS IRAQ part of the “global war on terror” or a diversion from it? Is the war over once we capture Osama bin Laden–or kill him–or will it continue after? Should America side with the reactionaries or the revolutionaries?
To say that the Bush-Kerry race is a referendum on Iraq misses much of the moment: It is really a Rorschach Test about the world of the early 21st century. What do we see when we look at the greater Middle East? Do a we see a region where a stable–but unfortunately autocratic order–is beset by violent religious zealots? Or do we see a region in the midst of a fundamental crack-up, the erosion of an ancien regime?
Listen to John Kerry from last week’s debate: He sees terrorists as a fringe element, the font of all our troubles. He promised never “to take my eye off the goal: Osama bin Laden.” The Iraq war is–let’s recite together–the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. If the United States (and let’s not forget those courageous allies) could just focus all their intelligence, law enforcement, and military efforts on Osama–and, of course, the Pakistanis would stand by while we invaded the Northwest Frontier–we could wrap this thing up in short order.
President Bush, by contrast, has been struggling almost since September 11 to define the war more broadly, to try to escape the box he built for himself by declaring the “war on terror.” Almost immediately, he expanded the definition to include rogue regimes, the theater of war to span the “greater Middle East” (meaning the entire Islamic world), and the “goal” to a region-wide “transformation” of the political order.
For George W. Bush, September 11 really did change things; for John Kerry, it is possible to return to the status quo, to bolster our alliances with the regions’ despots and retreat to a posture of over-the-horizon power-balancing, thus reducing America’s military presence.
At this early stage of the war, it’s impossible to know which view is correct. But it’s certainly true that Bush’s view is more nuanced and sophisticated. Kerry’s proposed strategy looks backward and presumes a simple, billiard-ball “realism” in international politics; a third-generation Kissinger caricature.
It’s also pretty clear that, even if John Kerry wins his war and achieves the laser-like goal of grabbing Osama, the war in the real world will continue. The real war is a civil war within Arabia and the larger Islamic world. It’s between the old, post-colonial autocrats and the Islamic revolutionaries, be they Shia, Iranian, or Sunni, Arab, or otherwise. The era of petty tyrants–protected by Western powers–whose crimes are ameliorated only by their corruption, is passing.
The only question is what sort of revolution will replace the old order. Will it be a reign of terror, led by a class of clerics? Or will it be a liberal revolution, enabled by the United States, that allows the world’s Muslims to enjoy their natural political rights, seeking life and liberty and pursuing happiness? The revolution is happening, and America should not–cannot–be agnostic as to the outcome. The U.S. election is a choice between a man willing to ride this tiger–President Bush–and one–Senator Kerry–who wants to pretend the tiger doesn’t exist.
Tom Donnelly is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.
