First, Bacevich quotes former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as saying in September 2001 that "we have a choice—either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live; and we chose the latter." Bacevich claims that "in this context, 'they' represent the billion or so Muslims inhabiting the greater Middle East." Yet I fail to see the basis for that claim; I interpret "they" to refer only to those who support terrorism against the United States, and reading that sentence in the full context of Rumsfeld's remarks supports that interpretation. In fact, on 23 October 2001 Rumsfeld clarified his position, stating that "the choice we have either is we change the way we live or we change the way the terrorists are living."
Furthermore, Bacevich argues that the long war has been ineffective and claims that "efforts to spread democracy have either stalled or succeeded only in enhancing the standing of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah." Now, Iraq and Afghanistan may not be model states, but they are certainly more democratic than they were under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Perhaps progress in those countries has "stalled," but they have clearly made quite a bit of progress.
Worse, Bacevich fails to offer a real alternative to the "long war." He merely suggests "curbing our appetites, paying our bills and ending our self-destructive dependency on foreign oil and foreign credit." Perhaps the last of those options would help to reduce terrorism against the United States, but it certainly can not solve the problem alone.
Like it or not, the United States simply must combat terrorism abroad. We have no other choice.
Furthermore, Bacevich argues that the long war has been ineffective and claims that "efforts to spread democracy have either stalled or succeeded only in enhancing the standing of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah." Now, Iraq and Afghanistan may not be model states, but they are certainly more democratic than they were under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Perhaps progress in those countries has "stalled," but they have clearly made quite a bit of progress.
Worse, Bacevich fails to offer a real alternative to the "long war." He merely suggests "curbing our appetites, paying our bills and ending our self-destructive dependency on foreign oil and foreign credit." Perhaps the last of those options would help to reduce terrorism against the United States, but it certainly can not solve the problem alone.
Like it or not, the United States simply must combat terrorism abroad. We have no other choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment