The idea that democratic debate gives "aid and comfort to our enemies" is self-evidently stupid. It doesn't make logical sense, and there isn't a shred of proof, either. I think it may be even more wrong than just having no effect, though. A vigorous debate about the Iraq war, rendition, Guantanamo Bay, domestic spying, and all the other bad Bush policies in defense of which the administration has trotted out the above canard could very well weaken our enemies.

Remember who the enemy is, and where their support comes from. They are extremists, to whose benefit it is to polarize the people into diametrically opposed sides, to eviscerate the moderate middle. They want Arabs and Muslims to believe that America is hell-bent on the destruction of Islam and the enslavement of Muslims. They get much of their support from poor, idle, angry youth who believe that America is responsible for their problems, and that they have little choice but to fight.

Now consider what effect a sensible, deliberate, reasonable, and, above all, public debate would have. It would demonstrate that America is not hell-bent on destroying them. It would demonstrate that there is a hope for a future that does not involve blowing up innocent people and themselves. They would immediately recognize that extremist tactics would make it harder for the moderate, reasonable voice to be heard. Far from strengthening Al Qaeda et al., showing our disunity would have the opposite effect. The fact is that we cannot win the "War on Terror" without winning over those who might otherwise become terrorists.

Consider how we in the United States reacted to the apparent ascendancy of Iranian moderates like Khatami, and the disappointment of their replacement by hard-liners like Ahmadinejad. There were and are many Iranians who interested in normalized relations, avoiding aggression and hostility, and finding a peaceful solution to various problems. That they exist is a good thing. That they publicly disagree with the ruling hard-liners is a good thing. That is, it is a good thing for everyone except for the hard-liners.

And there lies the crux of it. When the boisterous discourse of a functioning democracy is condemned as treasonous, the ultimate goal is maintaining power. That debate may be a healthy thing for America and the world at large, but it is a threat to the Bush administration. They have no interest in the morale of the troops 1 , though that is the banner they wrap themselves in. No, the goal is to squelch and pollute any reasoned discourse of important issues, because their destructive and short-sighted policies cannot stand up to scrutiny. Only thus can they remain in power and achieve a "permanent majority."

¶ 1311 Posted at 05.23 PM ⇒ No Comments ( issues )