Tolerating Terrorism

"Let the fear of danger be a spur to prevent it; he that fears not, gives advantage to the danger."

    - Francis Quarles (1592-1644), English poet

After reading a New York Times piece by Matt Bai in which John Kerry made some remarks about terrorism, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani had a few things to say in response:

"For some time...I've wondered exactly what John Kerry's approach would be to terrorism and I've wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.

I'm wondering when Senator Kerry thought they were a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?"

Giuliani then elaborates on how unrealistic Kerry's view of the threat of terrorism is and how markedly different it is from what he and the President believe:

"This is so different from the President's view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don't confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that's when you're at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days--I'm assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s--they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he's not defining it correctly."

Giuliani's interpretation of what Kerry said is that the Democratic candidate believes there's some "acceptable level of terrorism." Rudy feels that such a stance from a man who wants to be our commander-in-chief is frightening:

"How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people who are killed, that we're going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we'll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry's thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking."

The Kerry consistency to which Giuliani refers is revealed in many ways: (1) the candidate's stance on Vietnam--that abandoning that country was the right thing to do; (2) his record of opposing the Reagan arms buildup necessary to win the Cold War; (3) his opposition to the Persian Gulf War despite having a U.N. resolution and a multi-nation coalition, which he now harps on ad nauseam with regard to Iraq; and (4) his proposal to significantly reduce our intelligence budget shortly after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  

Giuliani says the core of John Kerry's philosophy on terrorism is that it "is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we're ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?" He contrasts this with the President's approach:

"This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made--significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we're going to face up to terrorism and we're going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There's no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there's no reason to tolerate organized crime."

I think Rudy has it right. I think John Kerry, despite the events of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in other parts of the world, views terrorism as only a nuisance, something akin to prostitution and illegal gambling, as he likes to put it. If Giuliani's assessment is correct, and I think it is, Kerry's election and subsequent abandonment of an aggressive offensive against terrorists would undo all that we have achieved thus far. It would leave Afghanistan and Iraq in the lurch, inviting our enemies to re-establish their tyrannical rule in these countries. It would diminish our standing as an ally to any who need our help and further reinforce the view held in much of the Muslim world that we are a "paper tiger," strong in the initial phases of battle but unwilling to press on when things get tough.

Update: Two well known columnists weigh in on what Kerry said in the New York Times interview with Matt Bai. Max Boot, writing for the Los Angeles Times, tends to agree with Giuliani's assessment. Tom Friedman's op-ed in the New York Times gives Kerry the nod. Both are worth a read. You may have to register in order to access them. Thanks to Real Clear Politics for the links.