|
Sally, et al:
here are a few samples gleaned from current headlines about the political
environment and legislative activity.
Speaking for many in the US and on this list I sincerely hope that the
British government and people of Great Britain will avoid our gravest mistakes,
as they recover and continue to deal with the problem of terrorism in a
globalized world. We’d never had
anything like 9/11 happen before, and our bad choices often overshadowed our
good choices. As fallout
from Karl Rove’s callous smear of liberals at a partisan event recently demonstrates,
the time for unified action can be too brief and institutional competition will
impede problem solving. It takes both broad vision and technical restraint,
something made more difficult by the politics of divide and conquer. Blair
would do well, and I think he will, to avoid Bush’s mistakes of polarizing the
very people from whom he needs cooperation. Another
advantage the British have that the US didn’t is that the 7/7 London attacks,
whether they are judged in consensus as attacks on everyday people and the
western way of life or attacks on western institutional symbols, happened
during a seasoned politician’s watch. Bush was a ‘rookie’ leader and a not very
bright one at that, and 9/11 happened to an unsuspecting and largely inwardly
focused population. There seems to be very little Why us? in the admirable response of the British public. Americans
suffered from an insularity or naïve arrogance that brought out an unfortunate
vengeful response in too many, accompanied by the four stages of grief. We have much to learn yet in our collective
midlife crises, and I hope we will return to the higher middle ground. KwC Frankel: British
politicians unite behind Blair http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/11/AR2005071100534.html Lichtblau: Parties
failing in joint effort to review Patriot Act http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/politics/12patriot.html McManus: London attacks give Bush a second wind.
Renewed fear of terrorist sleeper cells will probably spur increased support
for tough law enforcement measures such as the Patriot Act, which is up for
renewal. And there's new enthusiasm in Congress for increased spending on
domestic security, especially mass transit -- an area in which legislators were
cutting budgets three weeks ago. "There's no telling how long the wave of
concern will last. If the London attack gives way to months of calm, the
increased fear -- and any gain in popularity for Bush -- may well be short-lived.
But for the
moment, Washington is back in 9/11 mode." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-assess10jul10,0,3926775.story?coll=la-home-headlines The War's Realists
By E.
J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post, Tuesday, July 12, 2005; A21 "We're fighting
the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the world so we do not have to
face them here at home." That's what President
Bush said in his speech yesterday at the FBI Academy in Quantico. After the
attacks on Britain, our closest ally in the war on terrorism, it is an
astonishing thing to say. "It's a very insensitive statement with regard
to the British," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). "Tony Blair must absolutely
have blanched when he heard that." What does Bush's
statement mean? Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Fran Townsend, the
president's homeland security adviser, said that the war in Iraq attracts
terrorists "where we have a fighting military and a coalition that can
take them on and not have the sort of civilian casualties that you saw in
London." Huh? If British troops
fighting in Iraq did not stop the terrorists from striking London, then what is
the logic for believing that American troops fighting in Iraq will stop
terrorists from striking our country again? Intelligence reports -- and
Townsend's own words -- suggest that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding
ground since the American invasion. How, exactly, has that made us safer? It is time for a policy on terrorism that
is based on more than ideology and the rote incantations the president has been offering for four
years. The horror in London should force intelligent politicians to ask
fundamental questions: What will it take to achieve success in Iraq? And how
should our homeland security policy be adjusted to make the United States
safer? As it happens, some
politicians are doing just that. Yesterday Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on
the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a report on his visit to Iraq last
week. It is refreshingly
balanced and free of ideology.
The good news, Levin said, is that there is "a high level of
optimism" among Iraqis that they will meet the Aug. 15 deadline for
writing a draft constitution. The bad news is that the "insurgency is not
weakening and that the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq has increased." What's needed, he
says, is a clear American signal to the Iraqis that they must meet the deadline
on the constitution. We also need a "road map for Iraqis taking ownership
of the risks and responsibility for their own security and survival." "If there is any
prospect of defeating the insurgency," Levin argues, "we need to make clear to
the Iraqis that if they are unable to reach agreement on the constitution, we
will reconsider our presence in Iraq and that all options will be on the table,
including withdrawal." Levin's call for
"measurable benchmarks" is designed to make clear how many Iraqi
units "capable of counterinsurgency operations" will be needed
"so that coalition units can first withdraw from cities and other visible
locations and begin a withdrawal from the country as a whole." Levin is calling for a
policy of achievement, not cut-and-run. As he puts it:
"Without adopting and implementing a measured and credible plan, coalition
forces could be needed for an indeterminate time. Without such a plan, Iraqis
may never assume responsibility for taking back their country from the
insurgents and taking the risks and making the compromises necessary to chart
their own destiny." As for homeland security, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is pushing for new formulas to direct more
federal money to the places most at risk -- specifically large, urban centers
-- and to solving problems that have taken a back seat to high-profile
concerns. "We have
overinvested in airline security at the expense of mass transit but also
chemical security and our ports," Collins, who chairs the Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said in an interview. "We
always look backward, rather than anticipate the next threat." Collins's new formulas
probably won't satisfy the especially vulnerable citizens of large metropolitan
areas. Sen. Frank Lautenberg
(D-N.J.)
has been rightly critical of Congress for "treating homeland security
funding like a political pork barrel." Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York both favor big increases in federal help for
transit security. But Collins is at least moving in the right direction and
asking the right questions. And she pledges to pass a chemical plant security
bill that has, up to now, languished in a Washington lobbyist hell. "America will not
retreat in the face of terrorists and murderers," the president declared
yesterday. Absolutely. But neither can we retreat behind a haze of rhetoric and
ideology that contributes nothing to the fight against terrorism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/11/AR2005071101414.html mail scanned
by nav |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
