Chicago Columnist Illinois Leader Entrepreneur Political Analyst Business Advisor Illinois Review

President Bush stood in the East Room Monday to reaffirm his commitment to war in Iraq, despite news of more American casualties.

Thursday, April 22, 2004

By Ralf Seiffe

After listening to all the 9/11 hearings I could stand, I tried to comprehend why the Clinton Administration approached terrorism as a law enforcement issue and why George Bush changed that. Unexpectedly, my 13-year old son helped make it clear.

That morning was the first “summer” weekend of the 2004 season and it drew the family to the back porch for breakfast where we consumed English muffins and the Chicago Tribune. Usually my son is more interested in combing the TV listings for episodes of The Simpsons he hasn’t yet programmed into the TIVO but that morning he was concerned with the war. The newspaper articles were full of Americans dying and suggestions that the situation has deteriorated beyond redemption.

As we talked about Iraq, it became clear that he knew his geography but that his social studies weren’t so sharp. In his view, western culture and Islamic culture were of equal value and he did not see much difference between them. He did not recognize, or even conceive that there might be a value difference between the customs one might find in Des Moines and in, say, Najif.

That inability to discriminate may explain the difference between President Clinton’s approach to terrorism and President Bush’s much different view. It’s important because the Democrats' certain nominee appears to be recommending a return to Clinton’s policy.

In the Democrat’s view, the U.S. is merely another in the community of nations. While we are nominally sovereign, real moral weight is to be found in collective action in the company of other nations. Like my 13-year old, they are unable to make a value judgment as to the absolute merit of any unilateral course of action so they seek approval from the international community. They can see the barbarity of Saddam, know he deserved removal yet they still need confirmation from others. This moral uncertainty is why the left is so intent on bringing the United Nations into the Iraqi war.

Ceding authority to the international community has certain logical consequences, however. Among these is that a nation cannot subject itself to the judgment of its inferiors lest it fall to their level. Accordingly, we must ignore the moral inferiority of other nations if we are to get along with them, that is, we must refrain from making value judgments about others who are clearly substandard. Standing by while Libya acts as the UN’s arbiter of human rights is a perfect example.

The complement of suspending judgment is to accept others as equals. In this worldview, Britain, Italy and Sweden have the same value as Iraq, Korea and Zimbabwe and it is beyond anyone to criticize one another. To deal with the planet’s barbarians, one must fool themselves by elevating these monsters to the same level as the ambassador of Japan or the prime minister of New Zealand and let them speak. One must take their envoy’s expedient denunciations of terrorism in New York at face value, knowing that satellite pictures show that same diplomat visiting terrorist training camps back home.

If a nation trades its own sovereignty for the promise of international approval, it forecloses options that would otherwise be available. In our case, predicating our anti-terrorist activity on the approval of the UN precluded any effective military action against bin Laden and others in the 1990’s. Without a military option, only less effective methods are left, such as the law enforcement approach.

The genesis of this predicament is that the left has been warring against our own culture for two generations. The left and their progressive allies have succeeded far beyond what anyone would have predicted when, as students, they began the battle in 1964.

Now part of the country’s leadership, the wounds they have inflicted are becoming evident. Chronic rejection of objective values has so atrophied their judgment that they can no longer discriminate between good and bad without international confirmation---which is often wrong. Lacking the ability to make such judgments on their own, they admit they are unfit to lead in a world filled with evil.

Contrast the approval-seeking in the last administration with the Bush Doctrine. The president recognizes this is a long-term battle with a culture that seeks our destruction. Our policy now recognizes the true nature of terrorism, makes a value judgment and takes the indicated, military action. We now recognize that terrorists and the nations that sponsor them are merely placeholders in a conflict that is far larger, and will last longer, than most of us are willing to admit.

Going back to a law enforcement strategy will prove ineffective and it’s dangerous. While we fool ourselves with the false comfort of inactivity, the terrorists will regroup and get stronger. When the next 9/11 comes, they will be a far more formidable challenge. As I tell my son about his homework, better to get it done now than let it pile up and fail to get it done, later.

© 2005 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

Ralf Seiffe advises business start-ups and product launches from Chicago, Illinois and is a political analyst and columnist for the Illinois Leader.