|
 Defense
And Democracy...
Thoughts on the State of the Union speech... [Mark
Alexander] 2/6/06
Every year
this column seeks to extract from the annual State of the Union
address a basic message of the President's concerns for the
coming year. This time, two themes quickly emerged: National
defense and global democratization. Taken together, President
George W. Bush believes that a strong national defense and
a furtherance of democracy abroad constitute the best strategy
for defending our nation's security in a post-9/11 world.
In fact,
these two components are virtually inseparable.
Contributor
Mark Alexander
[Courtesty of The Federalist Patriot]
Mark
Morrison Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher
of The
Federalist Patriot, the Web's "Conservative
E-Journal of Record" and now the most widely
subscribed Internet-based publication. [go to Alexander index]
Subscribe
|
The President's
address reflected this reality. In Iraq, the U.S. and its allies
aren't only "striking terrorist targets while we train
Iraqi forces," but also "helping the Iraqi government
to fight corruption and build a modern economy so all Iraqis
can experience the benefits of freedom." Just as the Marshall
Plan and NATO followed on the heels of World War II, the cessation
of hostilities in Iraq will mark a crucial phase of America's
mission in the region -- helping democracy take root in the
Middle East.
Regarding
democratization and its ultimate goal -- that is, "the
end of tyranny in our world" -- the President was clear: "Some
dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future
security of America depends on it." The simple truth that
democracies don't attack other democracies, a maxim originating
with Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace in 1795, is still considered
the only verified, empirical claim of international relations
theory.
Democracies
aren't just important for what they create, but also for for
what they prevent: a vacuum that fills with would-be tyrants. "Dictatorships
shelter terrorists and feed resentment and radicalism and seek
weapons of mass destruction," the President told Congress. "Democracies
replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens
and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every
step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer --
so we will act boldly in freedom's cause."
In this respect,
America's ideals and America's self-interest don't conflict,
but align smoothly -- and they always should.
That's also
true of President Bush's terrorist surveillance program, legally
conducted by the National Security Agency -- the existence
of which was illegally leaked by The New York Times. Not only
does the program have precedent in previous administrations
and the backing of federal courts, it is also in accordance
with the executive powers enumerated by the Constitution. Moreover,
it is vital to our nation's security. Despite what partisan
Democrats would have us believe, the past 53 months of terror-free
tranquility here at home have not been a matter of dumb luck.
Nor was the
lack of surveillance in years prior to September 11th and the
success of the terrorist hijackers a matter of mere happenstance.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Debra Burlingame,
sister of Charles "Chic" Burlingame, III, pilot of
Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon, argues that Mr. Bush's
oft-demonized NSA terrorist surveillance may have thwarted
the 9/11 attackers.
How so? Two
hijackers of Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi,
received more than a dozen phone calls from a known al-Qa'ida "switchboard" in
Yemen, all with the knowledge of the NSA. However, in keeping
with the prevailing institutional culture at the time, the
NSA didn't intercept the calls to avoid the appearance of "domestic
spying."
As President
Bush lamented in Tuesday's address, "we did not know about
their plans until it was too late." Indeed, terrorism
can only be beaten proactively; by the time a jetliner takes
out a skyscraper, it is, as the President says, too late.
Of the surveillance
program, the President reminded the convened Congress that "...to
prevent another attack...I have authorized a terrorist surveillance
program to aggressively pursue the international communications
of suspected al-Qa'ida operatives and affiliates to and from
America. ... If there are people inside our country who are
talking with al-Qa'ida, we want to know about it...."
Then again,
does everybody want to know about it? This defense of the terrorist
surveillance program drew looks of stupefaction from the gum-chewing
Hillary Clinton, shown wide-eyed, mouth ajar in a half-grin,
head shaking in disagreement, all as the President spoke the
words, "We will not sit back and wait to be hit again." No
doubt this colorful "surveillance" of Sen. Clinton
on national television will play well back home in New York,
one-time home of the World Trade Center.
The Democrats'
churlish behavior Tuesday night served notice that they'll
continue to play politics first. The security needs of our
nation, however, can't wait for them to grow up -- and this
President isn't inclined to bide his time.
As The Patriot
has argued countless times, the principal threat America faces
-- and the principal reason we must steel ourselves for a long
campaign against terrorism -- is that WMD, particularly nuclear
weapons, may one day fall into the hands of Jihadis bent on
our destruction.
As in Afghanistan
and Iraq, the best defense is a strong offense, and we fight
the terrorists abroad that we might not have to fight them
at home. As the President aptly warned, "[W]e cannot find
security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within
our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone,
they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield
to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat."
The fight
isn't just with jets in the air and troops on the ground. The
far more difficult and long-term job is the creation of economic
and cultural conditions to promote the emergence of a sustainable
and expanding democratic space in the Middle East and across
Central and South Asia. In this endeavor, the U.S. can only
show support and lead the way. The peoples of these regions
must ultimately decide their own destiny. -one-
copyright
2006 Federalist Patriot
§
|
