by TChris

Is President Bush foregoing pragmatic solutions to terrorism, instead locking the country into an unending and unwinnable conflict that creates more enemies than it can destroy? Robert Parry asks why the alternative strategy -- "to reduce tensions, resolve political differences and gradually ease the hardliners to the sidelines" -- has been so little debated. While many of the President's supporters contemptuously label pragmatic solutions as "appeasement" or warn that "the terrorists win" if western nations recognize and address legitimate grievances that breed terrorism, Parry argues that Bush's approach is almost certain to fail, with drastic consequences.

Taken in its totality, Bush’s vision carries logical consequences of the gravest order: Military strategy will overwhelm diplomacy; root causes of Middle Eastern terrorism, such as the plight of the Palestinians, will go unattended so as not to “appease” the terrorists; civil liberties at home and abroad will be set aside in the name of security; Bush’s allies, no matter how brutal and autocratic, will be hailed for their moral virtues; critics of Bush, including longtime Western allies such as France, Germany and now Spain, will be derided as “soft on terror”; lying, spin and intimidation will be the currency of the U.S. public debate.

Parry argues that the consequences of Bush's approach will lead to a long-term victory for terrorists -- "one that is looming if the United States can’t figure out how to have a realistic and honest debate about terrorism."