Hadley & Townsend (The New York Times): What We Saw in London

[Jack Rabbit]

From The New York Times
Dated Sunday July 24

What We Saw in London
By Stephen Hadley and Francis Fragos Townsend

The British people suffered another attack this week, one that fortunately caused far less damage than the horrible events of July 7. But as they did earlier this month, the people of London responded bravely. Their courage over these harrowing few weeks reminds us that those who love freedom have prevailed against such evil before and can do so again.

The London attacks vividly demonstrated the challenge we face. As President Bush has said: "The terrorists need to be right only once. Free nations need to be right 100 percent of the time." We need all citizens, everyone who loves freedom, to join in the fight. And in this fight, the people the terrorists most want to dominate - the people of Islam - will be our most important allies.

Muslims are the prize the terrorists hope to claim. They are also the victims of the terrorists, for suicide attacks have likely killed and wounded more Muslims than people of any other faith. It is their religion that the terrorists invoke to justify these evil acts, and so Muslims themselves are in the best position to expose the terrorists' lies. They are increasingly doing exactly that, as the 500 Muslim leaders who signed a declaration condemning the July 7 bombings bravely showed.

The London attacks served to underscore the reality that we face an enemy determined to destroy our way of life and substitute for it a fanatical vision of dictatorial and theocratic rule. At its root, the struggle is an ideological contest, a war of ideas that engages all of us, public servant and private citizen, regardless of nationality.

Read more.

I know there are people here who are anxious to tear this thing apart. Have at it.

Let me begin.

This vision is eerily reminiscent of earlier totalitarian systems, where a radical few subjugated the helpless many.

Yes and no. Totalitarian systems assume a government in power; Osama is not in power. He is more like a guerrilla leader on a global scale. His overall goal -- or at least an apparent one -- is one that makes me cringe and resembles fascism in many ways. Osama's utopia is one where there would be a hierarchy of the faithful (as defined by Osama or people like him) and would be justifiably characterized as one where an elite group subjugate the masses.

History has taught us that the best antidote to totalitarianism is forceful resolve coupled with actions that advance human freedom.

This is high sounding rhetoric. There are no specifics in it. What does it offer to those to whom Osama?

This constructive vision was on display in Scotland at the Group of 8 summit meeting when the terrorists struck London for the first time. The leaders at that meeting hammered out plans to reverse generations of lost opportunities in Africa by marrying aid to reform.

When the Bushies start talking about "reform", hold on to your wallets. One might be well advised to read George Monbiot's take on the G8 plan for Africa.

The second important lesson flows directly from the first. An ideological contest can be a long and difficult one.

Ah, yes, the endless war. Please surrender your freedoms to our Fearless Leader and pass the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. We'll need those additional powers for the time being and will let you know when you can safely read a book at the public library again.

(W)e can take heart for the long run because we know that we, and not the terrorists, are on the right side of history: people everywhere prefer freedom to slavery and will embrace it whenever they can, because freedom is the wish of every human being.

However, freedom is a very abstract concept and means different things to different people. The Bushies seem to have a very definite idea of what it ought to mean to everybody: having the corporate CEO lording it over your pension fund.

The third lesson is that the struggle against terrorism requires force of arms, but will not be won through force of arms alone.

So, again, what are we offering these people? I certainly hope post-Saddam Iraq is no example of what we have to offer. Iraq suffers from severe shortages of electrical power, clean water, gasoline (in a country that only has the world's third largest supply of petroleum), poor police protection and an occupation force that can't guarantee the safety of the road from central Baghdad to the airport.

For several years now, it's been clear that two opposing ideas, one of hope and one of despair, are competing for the world's embrace.

Bush and Osama? I see only two competing visions of despair.

[Cocoa]

1. only mentions Iraq in passing

how can anyone take seriously a piece about the war on terror that only mentions Bush's centerpiece in the war on terror in passing?

How does this crap get printed?

[scarletwoman]

2. This "crap" gets printed 'cuz it's by bushco's Nat'l Security Advisor and

Homeland Security Advisor: Condi's boy Stephen Hadley, and Francis Townsend.

I was reading the NYT editorial page earlier today -- catch Frank Rich's latest, it's superb! -- and clicked on this piece without paying attention to the byline.

I started skimming through it, caught all the standard "the terrorists hate freedom" bullshit, and thought WTF? Who the hell wrote this nonsense? A glance at the bottom of the page cleared it all up.

It's nothing but the standard line of crap the (mal)administration has been shovelling out for years now. Not even worth the time it takes to click on it.

sw

[Cocoa]

3. those credentials should have been a red flag

by definition, anyone still employed by Bush is a hack, and their writings belong in Talon News.

[scarletwoman]

4. Oh, absolutely. Total hacktitude!

I suppose the NYT is obligated to print articles by government officials, but it's certainly a waste of newsprint/bandwidth.

sw

[Jack Rabbit]

5. News less fit to print than Judy Miller's fiction about Saddam's nukes

Co-authored by Ahmed Chalabi.