Here are some thoughts on being intellectually fisted by an excerpt of John Ashcroft's new book
Never Again: The Moral Imperative for Toughness:
The United States will suffer more terrorist attacks during this war with al Qaeda.
Unequivocal statements of futurity in this vein are, by definition, propagandistic. The United States may suffer more attacks. I would even go so far as to say that there his a high degree of probability that such attacks will occur. However, unlike Mr. Ashcroft I make no prophetic claims; the sole purpose of which is to instill fear in the listener.
They [terrorists] are fanatical, relentless, and patient.
This is probably true. I don't know them. I doubt Mr. Ashcroft knows them. Which terrorists is he talking about? One would presume that he's referring to that great mass of indeterminate "al Qaeda types".
Their leadership is scattered, killed, or captured; their safe haven in Afghanistan is destroyed; their command and control structure has disintegrated
Untrue. Well, to be fair, there has been quite a lot of scattering, killing and capturing. However, the great mass of indeterminate "al Qaeda types" can hardly be quantified with such self-assured bravado. We were unable to establish a functional understanding of Iraq's nuclear and chemical weapons capabilities prior to invasion; how in the world can we be expected to believe such unambiguous declarations of destruction, especially since the enemy is – by our own definition – intrinsically protean and sustained by a non-hierarchical religious fanaticism? The Taliban, by the way, is baaack.
We are now at war with a diffuse, loosely organized network, united and motivated by a hatred for our nation and our core values. They are fed spiritually by bin Laden, and thrive in our society on the basic liberties they loath.
Mr. Ashcroft doesn't bother to substantiate his claim that bin Laden is feeding anyone (spiritually or otherwise). To "feed" a movement of this size would, I'm guessing, require communication. To declare that bin Laden is anything other than a figurehead or icon is to employ rhetoric in advance of the facts. There is no evidence to support this claim. Nor is there evidence to support the claim that terrorists are "thriving" in our own society. Ashcroft includes this sentence to advocate for more domestic spying and suchlike, and to do so on the strength of unsubstantiated bullshit statements of truthiness.
The advance of civilization has dispersed technology, information, and destructive capacity so thoroughly that their network easily exploits these advances for their cause. This network will hit us again when they can.
Scary sounding, but true. It's always been true. Civilization does advance and a byproduct of human progress is the cross-pollination of military technology through diverse (even remote) populations. Horrifying. An ungovernable spasm of fear just made me pee myself.
[...]
One simple but difficult principle provides the opportunity for the United States to achieve “never again.” That is: The will to win. The will to do whatever is necessary within the Constitution to protect America separates us from more death and destruction within our shores. It is the will to sacrifice, to persevere in the face of adversity and criticism just as generations of Americans did before us. It is no guarantee, but if we falter, grow complacent, or fail to do what we can, we give the terrorist network opportunities that, with time and patience, they will exploit to kill more innocent Americans.
This is simply gross. To begin with, "whatever is necessary within the Constitution" is probably one of the most terrible, overwrought, insipid and morally backward phases in circulation today. The caveat "within the Constitution", as we all know, has been rendered meaningless by the Bush administration's power grab (via signing statements, expanded executive authority, and the unlawful reinterpretation of the Constitution as functionally meaningless by administration lawyers). Additionally, anyone that feels the need to include such qualifiers as "within the Constitution" or "within the law" or suchlike, is implicitly acknowledging the need to assure their listeners that they're not, in point of fact, amoral murdering criminals. But it's the "whatever is necessary" part that is the real rhetorical sludge of this passage. It stands in stark contrast to other, more intelligent, options: "whatever is the most efficacious, durable, wise, etc." "Necessary" brings two issues to mind: (a) who decides necessity and which measures and/or options meet that standard, and (b) to have reached the point where action is necessary is to have squandered whatever time and circumstances existed in which to exercise choice and/or judgment. "Whatever" is, likewise, a rubbish bin of options – including those which may be reprehensible, counterproductive, asinine, dictatorial, and generally bad. "Whatever is necessary". Fuck that.
And then there's this: "…to persevere in the face of adversity and criticism". Right. Even, one must conclude, if the criticism is valid, constructive, corrective and/or "necessary". This phrase is a political one. Surely America faces adversity in the guise of our enemies. Criticism, however, is a different matter. As big a dickhead as Mr. Ashcroft is, it's hard to image that he's particularly concerned about al Qaeda's criticisms of Bush's policies. It's the salient criticism from sentient Americans over which he intends to "persevere".
ADDENDUM: This is really why I posted anything in the first place.