In the short time between the Connecticut Senate primary and the revelation of the thwarted British terrorist plot, Slate’s Jacob Weisberg wrote a fairly controversial critique of [tag]Democrats[/tag], particularly the more progressive elements of the party, and the politics of a [tag]war[/tag] on [tag]terrorism[/tag].
Lieberman’s opponents are not entirely wrong about the war. The invasion of Iraq was, in ways that have since become hard to dispute, a terrible mistake. There were no weapons of mass destruction to be dismantled, we had no plan for occupying the country, and our troops remain there only to prevent the civil war we unleashed from turning into a bigger and more horrific civil war. Just about everyone now agrees that the sooner we find a way to withdraw, the better for us and for the Iraqis.
The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush’s faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against [tag]Islamic[/tag] fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism. Politically, it points the way to perpetual Democratic defeat.
Weisberg’s use of the phrase “anti-Lieberman [tag]insurgents[/tag]” is overly inflammatory and intended to poison the well — Lieberman’s opponents couldn’t just be “critics,” they had to be “insurgents” — and he argues that “many” of these Dems “appear” not to take Islamic fanaticism seriously, a point which he backs up with literally no examples or support.
That doesn’t mean, however, that the argument is necessarily wrong.
Taking up the Weisberg-may-have-a-point side, Kevin Drum responded:
“[A]side from kvetching about Bush’s policies, the [tag]liberal[/tag] blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it.
Emphasis counts, and this widespread silence makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that liberal bloggers just don’t find the subject very engaging.
And in the other corner, Digby saw a straw-man in the making.
I’m getting really tired of this. I would really like to see some evidence. This assertion [too many Dems fail to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously] misrepresents the far more complex view that many of us have that challenges the GOP’s silly neocon manicheanism. If Weisberg wants to endorse Bush’s absurd formulation that’s his privilege. But it is not the only valid way to look at it. […]
Most of us take the threat of Islamic fundamentalism — indeed fundamentalism of all kinds — far more seriously than the Republicans with their comic book and paint ball approach to complex problems. I think most of us feel that Bush has exacerbated the threat to such a degree that we are in vastly more danger today than we were before he undertook his absurd neo-congame. Again when you are actually right about something for some reason these elites consider you a fool and therefore you can’t be taken seriously on national security matters. With that kind of thinking we’ll be lucky to avoid blowing up the planet.
How about you? Regardless of merit or administration incompetence, are Dems and progressive voices guilty of “misapprehension” in addressing the problem of terrorism? Do we too often replace substantive ideas about counterterrorism with (fully justified) criticism of the president’s tragic errors? And if so, what is the progressive message about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism?