Talking Up the Caliphate
Throughout Tuesday’s press conference, President Bush made sure to drive home the point that “the stakes are high,” presumably in the choice between Democrats and Republicans, and particularly with respect to Iraq and other aspects of the war on terror. Exactly what are the stakes? Apparently our goal is now to stymie efforts to “extend the caliphate.” This is not the administration’s typical claim that its war on terror is necessary to repel attacks to “the homeland.” It places the foreign policy dimensions of the war on terror front and center, as the focus shifts once again--from simply protecting Americans from specific attack—to an “ideological battle.” But this attempt to expand the importance of the war on terror by reemphasizing an alleged ideological battle places the administration on shaky ground. Americans would be quite reasonable to ask, why should we care about a distant group’s desire to establish or “extend” a caliphate abroad?
Bush conjures up the bogeyman of a caliphate just weeks before the mid-term elections, an election he claims will be decided by security and the economy. By hyping the putative goals of Bin Laden and his ilk, Bush hopes to shore up support for his “preventative” approach (which he contrasts to the “law enforcement” approach of the Democrats who allegedly would wait until after an attack to respond). In doing so, he underscores the fact that Republicans still view national security as a strength issue for their party, and central to any winning campaign strategy. But the President’s remarks should also make clear that there is little to be gained by liberals who seek to talk up the terror threat. For instance, critics of the administration have made much of the recent National Intelligence Estimate as a means of showing that the administration’s policies have not “worked.” But to do so only reinforces the very assumptions (of a global war on terror, a powerful plot to “extend the caliphate,” a direct correlation between the Iraq war and terrorism) of which the administration has been attempting to convince us of all along.
The Administration has recommitted itself to playing up the threat, banking on the idea that they still win on the national security card. Try as they might, Democrats cannot outflank the Republicans on the security issue. And until they stop trying we all lose.
Bush conjures up the bogeyman of a caliphate just weeks before the mid-term elections, an election he claims will be decided by security and the economy. By hyping the putative goals of Bin Laden and his ilk, Bush hopes to shore up support for his “preventative” approach (which he contrasts to the “law enforcement” approach of the Democrats who allegedly would wait until after an attack to respond). In doing so, he underscores the fact that Republicans still view national security as a strength issue for their party, and central to any winning campaign strategy. But the President’s remarks should also make clear that there is little to be gained by liberals who seek to talk up the terror threat. For instance, critics of the administration have made much of the recent National Intelligence Estimate as a means of showing that the administration’s policies have not “worked.” But to do so only reinforces the very assumptions (of a global war on terror, a powerful plot to “extend the caliphate,” a direct correlation between the Iraq war and terrorism) of which the administration has been attempting to convince us of all along.
The Administration has recommitted itself to playing up the threat, banking on the idea that they still win on the national security card. Try as they might, Democrats cannot outflank the Republicans on the security issue. And until they stop trying we all lose.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home