For a variety of conservatives, most notably Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman, supporting aggressive counter-terrorism measures isn’t enough. Credibility on national security is based largely on whether someone is willing to use the words “Islamic” and “terrorism” next to each other.
It’s worth noting, of course, that the president, who enjoys the enthusiastic support of Giuliani, Lieberman, and others who share their ideology, doesn’t use the preferred rhetoric. He used to, and the White House would make occasional references to “Islamofascism,” but to the Bush gang’s credit, they’ve moved away from that kind of rhetoric.
According to former CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid, Giuliani & Co. should follow suit. Indeed, during a discussion yesterday on the role of the military in counterterrorism, the general told at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that Giuliani’s preferred rhetoric makes diplomacy in the Middle East “very, very difficult.”
“[E]ven adding the word ‘Islamic extremism,’ or qualifying it to ‘Sunni Islamic extremism,’ or qualifying it further to ‘Sunni Islamic extremism’ as exemplified by government such as Bin Laden, all make it very, very difficult because the battle of words is meaningful, especially in the Middle East to people. And so, I do think, and I had a chance to get to know many of the regional leaders out there. They clearly understand that we, collectively, are fighting a problem that they don’t want to win, that we don’t want to win. The problem that we have to face is how do we work together to keep this problem from becoming mainstream. […]
“The key is to figure out how we don’t turn this into Samuel Huntington’s Battle of Civilization’s and we work toward an area where we respect mainstream Islam. There’s nothing Islamic about Bin Laden’s philosophy, there’s nothing Islamic about suicide bombing. I believe that these are huge difficulties that we need to overcome, this notion of Christianity versus Islam. It’s not that, it doesn’t need to be that.
To hear Giuliani tell it, those who don’t connect Islam with terrorism are “politically incorrect” and unwilling to acknowledge the seriousness of the terrorist threat.
Go ahead, Rudy, tell us Gen. Abizaid doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I dare you.
Speaking of the general, Abizaid also stepped on the neocons’ talking points yesterday when he said every effort should be made to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but if the country does acquire them, the U.S. and its allies could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran.
John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.
“Iran is not a suicide nation,” he said. “I mean, they may have some people in charge that don’t appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon.”
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
“I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear,” he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
“There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran,” Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. “Let’s face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we’ve lived with a nuclear China, and we’re living with (other) nuclear powers as well.”
Let the right-wing smear of Gen. Abizaid begin in 3…2…1….