Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, who sadly slipped from reality a while ago, has a new column out that several far-right blogs are excited about. If offers an intriguing argument.
Democrats and some Republicans in Congress are seeking to humble, embarrass and, if they can, destroy the President and the prestige of his position as the Commander-in-Chief who is responsible for the safety of our military forces and the nation’s defenses. By doing so, they are adding to the dangers that face our nation. And so I ask again them again: do you think that leaving a power vacuum in Iraq will make us safer? If, as a result of the power vacuum, the terrorists are emboldened and God forbid we sustain here in the U.S. civilian casualties comparable to those caused in Iraq by car bombs, will you publicly accept responsibility?
It’s one of the stranger columns I’ve seen in a while, and I’m not quite sure why so many conservatives are so fond of it. Koch spends about 1,000 words talking up the threat against Iran, and concludes that the real problem is a non-binding resolution about escalation in Iraq. It appears to be a column so poorly edited that key paragraphs have been omitted altogether.
Nevertheless, if we look at Koch’s “argument,” it has a certain child-like quality to it: the president is in charge of the military; the military keeps us safe; Congress is criticizing the president’s military strategy; therefore Congress is interfering with our safety.
From there, Koch’s “logic” leads him to believe that critics of the president’s policy will be responsible for domestic terrorist attacks. No, I don’t understand it either.
I’m trying to wrap my head around this, in part because conservatives seem to believe the argument has merit. If U.S. forces withdraw, there may be a power vacuum in Iraq, which terrorists will supposedly fill. Therefore, domestic U.S. civilians are at risk. Again, it seems like there are important sentences missing that might tie these points together.
I suspect Koch is trying to say that if we withdraw from Iraq, the bad guys will follow us home, a favorite White House talking point. As Fred Kaplan explained yesterday, the Bush gang really ought to rethink this one.
Someone up high still seems to think it’s true or at least catchy. In fact, it makes no sense whatever. First, it assumes that “the enemy” in Iraq consists entirely of al-Qaida terrorists, when they comprise only a small segment of the forces attacking U.S. troops. Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias are not likely to “follow us home.”
Second, if terrorists wanted to attack American territory again (and maybe they do), their ability to do so is unaffected by whether we stay in or pull out of Iraq. It’s not as if they’re all holed up in Baghdad and Anbar province, just waiting for the fighting to stop so they can climb out of their foxholes and go blow up New York. If al-Qaida is a global network, its agents can fight in both places.
Third, this is a hell of a thing to say in front of the allies. It’s a crudely selfish message, suggesting that we’re getting a lot of people killed over there in order that nobody gets killed back here. What leader of a beleaguered nation, reading this remark, would seek America’s protection?
For what it’s worth, to answer Koch’s question directly, if Bush’s failed Iraq policy leads to more domestic terrorism, no, critics of the war won’t “publicly accept responsibility.” Will Koch?