Rarely has there been a more offensive, counterproductive, and—frankly—undemocratic and un-American idea in public politics as the suggestion by Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis to exclude Representative Ron Paul from the Republican presidential debates because of remarks he made during the South Carolina debate about the reasons behind the September 11 terrorist attacks.

My foreign policy philosophy is different from Mr. Paul’s. I enthusiastically supported the first Gulf War and, with reservations, supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as well. In the latter case, we were led to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and I argued for a quick intervention to depose Saddam, eliminate his WMD programs and get out. In my view, we should have immediately turned over reconstruction and nation-building to the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference or almost anyone else. I wrote a piece in support of the invasion ("Give War a Chance", ITNI) and would make the same recommendation again on the basis of what I knew at the time.

Still, I admire Representative Paul’s courage and consistency and cannot understand why his comments should make him a pariah in the Republican Party. Mr. Anuzis and his ilk had better watch themselves—if they succeed in removing Mr. Paul from the debate, they would send a powerful signal not only to Democrats, but also to independents and quite a few Republicans that the Republican Party is not a big tent, that there is no place in the party for those who are skeptical of foreign interventions, and that on the most important campaign issue—Iraq—the Republican Party has lost touch with reality on the ground in both Iraq and America. Mr. Anuzis may succeed in excluding Rep. Paul from the debate, but he would likely also contribute to excluding the Republicans from the White House.

What is it that Mr. Paul said? Now, his language was not quite precise, and I wish he had stressed that he was talking about what motivated suicide bombers and their masters, not legitimizing it. But for the record, these are his words:

Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East—I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us…I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, ‘I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

Whether one agrees with it or not, there was nothing repugnant in his statement. Actually, it was quite refreshing to hear a candidate, even someone who is considered a long-shot, trying to analyze what motivated the attackers.

My problem with the debate was not with Ron Paul, but with Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Of course, with the way Mr. Paul phrased his argument, he made himself vulnerable to a strong rebuttal. But I wish that Mr. Giuliani had offered an alternative explanation of why we were hit rather than self-righteous indignation. No one familiar with Al-Qaeda, its actions and statements, and the interrogations of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo and elsewhere, could say that the American way of life or even our status as the sole superpower was the exclusive reason for the 9/11 attacks. On the contrary, specific U.S. conduct in a number of areas, particularly the Middle East, has motivated and continues to motivate the terrorists. Acknowledging this does not necessarily mean that U.S. conduct was wrong and or that we should change our foreign policy behavior. But when American security and lives are at stake, we should be intellectually honest in evaluating what animates our enemies, even if we find their grievances without foundation. Understanding the other side is a basic requirement in any war, though it seems to be news to some leading politicians in both parties.

Mr. Giuliani was magnificent as the mayor of New York during the aftermath of the attack on the city. He was also a strong prosecutor. But does he have the character and intellectual depth to lead the United States in these troubled times? His moralistic sound bite at Ron Paul’s expense is not a substitute for the serious thinking that the American people are entitled to hear from presidential candidates. To be fair to Mayor Giuliani, the debates so far have been a travesty of the democratic process, which should allow voters to make informed choices. As Newt Gingrich commented, "We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer non-answers, so they can memorize what their consultant and focus groups said would work. . . . This idea of demeaning the presidency by reducing it to being a game show contest . . . is wrong for America."

Forcing presidential candidates to be game show contestants does demean them—and all of us too. Worse, it is a fundamental danger to the United States. The sad fact is that the most articulate contestant, even if he or she is also the best fundraiser, is not necessarily the best person to lead the nation. Most dangerous of all if the possibility that the winner will not even be able to do so.

Posted by Dimitri Simes at 05/18/2007 05:35:38 PM |