These are dire days for the war on terror on both sides of the Atlantic. These are dire days for the war on terror on both sides of the Atlantic. While British authorities betray England’s rich civil rights heritage by barring entrance to Geert Wilders, a parliamentarian from a fellow EU nation who had been invited to address the House of Lords on the perils of Islamic radicalism, Britain opens its arms to such men as Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian native (and former UK resident) who was apprehended in Pakistan as a suspected terrorist.
Worse, the Obama administration, which is backsliding to the pre-9/11 mode of regarding terrorism as a mere law-enforcement problem, agreed to send Mohamed to Britain despite military prosecutors’ assessment that they had a strong case against him.
Meanwhile, only days later, the Obama administration announced it would provide nearly a billion dollars in funding for Hamas-dominated Gaza through a feckless UN organisation notorious for its assistance to Palestinian terrorists pledged to Israel’s destruction.
So it depressingly goes. Yet, these parlous developments – much like the new administration’s breathtaking economic recklessness – provide real opportunities for a Republican resurgence. For this to happen on the national security front, two things are required.
First, Republicans must become the party of western liberties. They must relish the challenge of turning back the multi-front attack on free speech, manifested by speech codes, practices like “libel tourism” and even some statutes which, under the guise of rooting out “hate crimes”, seek to suppress all discussion of Islamic radicalism. The party must also become a bulwark against the encroachment of Islamic sharia law which, with its denigration of women, gays, non-Muslims and apostates, undermines the western commitment to freedom and equal protection under the law. Rededicating themselves to these principles would allow Republicans to appeal to authentic civil-libertarians, natural allies who were lost to conservatives during the Bush years.
Second, Republicans must regain moral clarity in the war on terror. President Bush was criticised in elite circles for his crystal-clear admonition, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, that we were committed to confronting radical Islam – and that other nations had a choice to be with us or against us in that battle. The truth remains that this “Bush doctrine” was and is the only sensible strategy for America’s national security.
Over time, though, the doctrine devolved into a weak imitation of its original self. Government officials absurdly convinced themselves that radical ideology could somehow be decoupled from violence, and that leading agitators were “moderates” because they sought, at least on the surface, to impose their highly immoderate aims through political processes rather than bombings. Our security goals shifted toward promotion of democracy despite the utter dearth of evidence that Country A’s being a democracy makes Country B safer – and despite strong evidence demonstrating how jihadists convert democratic freedoms to their advantage in undermining democratic societies.
Now we are seeing the natural end of this regression: the promotion of terrorism through funding that is ostensibly provided for political and humanitarian assistance, but which we know is underwriting brutality.
If Republicans find their voice on these two issues, the possibilities for galvanising public support are limitless (as opposed to galvanising elite support, the pointless quest for which is what got us in these straits in the first place). If Republicans fail in this regard, it will not be merely the party but the United States that suffers the grave consequences.