John Edwards has laid out his campaign themes:
Among them: “Guaranteeing health care for every single American,” “Strengthening our middle class and ending the shame of poverty,” “Leading the fight against global warming,” and “Getting America and the world to break our addiction to oil.”
He also listed “Providing moral leadership in the world — starting with Iraq, where we should begin drawing down troops, not escalating the war.”
In other news, the war on terror is over, apparently, since it doesn't seem to be one of the top five priorities.
I can hear someone arguing that that isn't a fair criticism - that "ending our addiction to oil" and "providing moral leadership" by drawing down troops are parts of the war on terror. But do those steps really address the threat of al-Qaeda? Ending oil imports would probably reduce funding for terror groups, but it wouldn't eliminate it; and I doubt all the "moral leadership" in the world would persuade al-Qaeda.
On that note, two quick thoughts that I've been meaning to flesh out further:
1) What are al-Qaeda's fears? The men who make up the organization are not fearless.
I’ve heard some cite the tale of General Pershing dipping his bullets in pig’s blood, or burying his defeated foes with pig’s carcasses. Betrayal? Failure? Doubt that God is not really on their side? These guys pledge loudly that they don’t fear death. But everyone knows fear. So what keeps these guys awake at night? And how can we use that to our advantage?
2) Al-Qaeda's sales pitch to young Muslim men is explicitly theological. “This is what Allah wants you to do. This is why you were created; your life has meaning, it has a purpose, you are special and you are called to a great destiny in a divine plan. This purpose is to kill infidels. In exchange for your sacrifice, you get 72 virgins in the afterlife and will be remembered and revered forever.” It is an evil message, but it is easy to grasp its appeal.
The counterargument from the West is variations of, “it’s illegal, it’s immoral, it’s wrong.” But I don't know how much weight has been put behind the argument that “it is apostasy, that is not Allah’s will, that bin Laden and his ilk are offering Muslims a false doctrine that angers and insults Allah, and those who choose this path will be damned for all eternity.”
Our enemies make an explicitly religious pitch, and offer not merely a cause to fight for but a worldview that lets the poor and uneducated reinvent themselves as noble and brave warriors for a cause synonymous with all that is ‘good’, complete with unseen and unimaginable rewards. Our counterargument has been largely secular, and thus ignores the spiritual, matters of the soul, a confused person’s yearning for a meaning and purpose to his life. What if we did? What if we systemically argued that following bin Laden betrays Islam, and that no good Muslim would consider that path?
I’m sure many in the West would scorn the idea of making that argument, and many Muslims would probably contend that those of us outside the faith have no standing to debate their theological doctrines, or declare what is and what isn’t Allah’s will. (On the other hand, of course we have standing to make this argument; we’re the ones who will be the targets if they decide that conversion by the sword has been given a heavenly thumbs-up.)
That's the short version of those thoughts...
