What We Should've Seen Five Years Ago

Just wanted to mention an absolutely tremendous program that started airing on PBS last night called "America at a Crossroads."

It's an 11-part series that covers, as described on the website, "the war on terrorism; the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan; the experience of American troops serving abroad; the struggle for balance within the Muslim world; and global perspectives on America’s role overseas."

I watched the first episode last night called "Jihad: The Men and Ideas Behind Al Qaeda." It was terrific. It traced the growth of fundamentalist Islam from the 1940s, explaining how the organization known as Al Qaeda was formed from a splinter faction of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980s (although the roots of the splinter go back into the 1970s).

There are two major themes that run through the development of the splinter group: 1) The application of violence, and 2) The emphasis on recruitment.

On the first theme, the application of violence refers to ideological shifts rather than simply tactical changes. As the splinter faction became more entrenched in the use of violence to spread its message of fundamentalist Islam, it widened its definition of "the enemy" at key points.

In the late 1970s, the violence was aimed primarily at those Middle Eastern leaders who professed secularism, particularly in Egypt where Ayman al-Zawahiri -- Osama bin Laden's lieutenant today -- lived. But into the 1980s, shifts took place to widen the scope of violence to include Western powers, especially the US, that supported secularism in the Middle East and, probably even more important, virtually anyone who the splinter faction deemed to be an infidel -- even if that person professed a faith in Islam.

While the vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East, and even a majority of those who subscribe to fundamentalism, do not approve of the use of violence, the inclusion of Muslims in the definition of "enemy" was viewed by most Islamic scholars as a particularly inappropriate interpretation of the Koran, and it demonstrated just how far the splinter group had strayed from the rest of Islam between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s.

On the second theme of recruitment, fundamentalist Islam as a whole gained significantly from the Six Days War in 1967 when secularist leaders in Egypt and Jordan fell to the Israeli forces. That war convinced many young Muslims that secularism was being punished by Allah and that fundamentalism was the way to go.

But it wasn't until the 1980s when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan that the splinter faction gained its first influx of recruits, including Osama bin Laden. From that point the organization grew and in the late 1980s formalized itself under the banner of Al Qaeda.

Throughout the 1990s, bin Laden believed that provoking the United States into a "cowboy reaction" was the best tactic for confronting the West. He witnessed firsthand the success the Soviet excursion into Afghanistan had in galvanizing the splinter movement, and he wanted to replicate that development with the US.

The first American reaction came in 1998 when Clinton ordered bombing in the Sudan in response to attacks on two American embassies in east Africa, which only helped fuel Al Qaeda's development.

The next reaction was more severe. When the US invaded Afghanistan in the wake of September 11, bin Laden expected the attack to galvanize Al Qaeda, but it actually had the opposite effect. Aside from letting bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders go in the hills of Tora Bora in December of 2001 by not putting US forces on the ground, the war in Afghanistan was a resounding success for the US.

Aiding the success was widespread sympathy in the Muslim world for the horrific attacks of September 11 and general mistrust of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

But, as the "America at a Crossroads" documentary made clear, all of that goodwill and momentum after Afghanistan was more than wiped away in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq and became -- in the eyes of many Muslims -- an occupying force in the region.

One Muslim commentator referred to the Iraq War as a "revival" for Al Qaeda, which was nearly flattened after Afghanistan. The Iraq War has brought about the development of homegrown terrorist cells throughout the region as anger and economic displacement led many to take up the banner of Al Qaeda even though the organization itself is less centralized than before due to disruptions in communication lines. At present, Al Qaeda serves more as an informal label or stamp for terrorism than an explicit chain of command.

It appears that only a few clips from part one are out on the series website, but hopefully they'll be adding more once the entire program has aired.

Parts two and three are set to air tonight on PBS -- at 8:00pm and 9:00pm, respectively. Each deal with the view of the Iraq War from the perspective of US soldiers.

The second part is called "Warriors" and it provides an in-depth profile of six American soldiers on the front lines of the Iraq War in Baghdad during 2005. The third part is called "Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience" and it looks at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the writings of the American soldiers who participated in the conflicts.

Here's the rest of the series lineup:

Tuesday, April 17
"Gangs of Iraq" at 8:00pm
"The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom" at 9:00pm

Wednesday, April 18
"Europe's 9/11" at 8:00pm
"The Muslim Americans" at 9:00pm

Thursday, April 19
"Faith Without Fear" at 8:00pm
"Struggle for the Soul of Islam: Inside Indonesia" at 9:00pm

Friday, April 20
"Security Versus Liberty: The Other War" at 8:00pm
"The Brotherhood" at 9:00pm

Check them out if you have the time.

The Bush Effect: A GOP Presidential Pickle

George W. Bush has really done a number on the early 2008 presidential race for the GOP. And most of the trouble centers on the Iraq War.

Rudy Giuliani seems to have the most steam, at this point, probably because he more than any other GOPer in the country can bring people back to the post-September 11th days when unadulterated resolve and bravado were just what the doctor ordered.

But by heading into Iraq less than two years later -- without much or any consideration for how to get out -- Bush has transformed pure resolve and bravado from useful national security characteristics to perceived national security risks.

For instance, the president's "bring it on" comment brought some scorn in 2003; however, much of the country was still with him on it at the time. But could you imagine the public reaction if he or anyone else uttered those words or anything like them now?

John McCain undoubtedly has been caught with his pants down during this transformation more than any of the other GOP presidential contenders. As Ezra Klein summed it up yesterday:

The tragicomic part, for McCain, is that in 2003, he was the perfect candidate for...2008. But he spent the intervening years sucking up to Bush and cozying up to the establishment and making nice with Jerry Falwell and generally debasing himself to coalesce the Republican Party around him, only to find, for the first time in memory, that that may have been a sucker's game. It's possible that, when all is said and done, not only will he have humiliated himself only to lose, but he'll have lost because he humiliated himself. It's downright Shakespearean.

(Matt Yglesias also offers a good synopsis of McCain's strategic follies here.)

But probably the most interesting aspect in all of this is how the Bush presidency has fundamentally changed what it means to be a conservative, at least for those wishing to take over the reins of the White House in 2008.

A case in point is Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who -- rumor has it -- is getting set to announce a presidential bid early next week. Hagel is a conservative in the traditional Goldwater sense of the word.

The well-respected National Journal, in fact, recently gave Hagel one of the highest conservative rankings in the US Senate. Hagel's conservativism clearly outpaced McCain's in the rankings, 72 to 56.7, and it even edged out Sam Brownback's score of 70.3 percent. And if Giuliani or Mitt Romney were included in the rankings, I bet Hagel's conservative credentials would put their's to shame, too.

And -- importantly for any national candidate these days -- on the issue of foreign policy, there are few GOPers who are more knowledgeable or respected than Hagel. While Giuliani played a foreign policy guru on TV from his municipal level post after September 11th, Hagel has actually been in a role where foreign policy is one of the explicit job duties.

It's true, of course, that whether someone is actually strong on foreign policy isn't as important as if they appear to be strong on foreign policy, which is why Giuliani's TV image is probably more important than Hagel's actual experience. But it's also true that the conservative media machine is powerful enough to easily make Hagel a household foreign policy name and the darling of "security moms" across the nation if that's what it wanted to do.

But it's clear that's not what the conservative media machine wants to do, and there's one obvious reason for it: Hagel's vocal criticism of the way Bush has handled the Iraq War.

So, essentially, what Bush has done is effectively marginalize the most conservative presidential candidate in the race. And, just to twist the knife a little more, it's happened over an issue that it's blatantly obvious to the vast majority of Americans that Hagel was right about and Bush was wrong about.

If I was a Republican, I'd rank that right up there with runaway spending as the most treasonous acts Bush has committed in regards to conservative doctrine.

But, interestingly, it looks like Hagel may hold the cards necessary to have the last laugh on this one. As Chris Cillizza notes in today's Washington Post, a bipartisan group calling itself "Unity 08" has been working hard to develop the political infrastructure for a viable third party candidate in 2008. If Hagel enters the race and doesn't win the GOP nom, he could become a frontrunner for that third party run.

And unlike Pat Buchanan, who was hardly a blip on the Republican radar in previous presidential races, Hagel has the ability to take a big chunk out of the GOP vote on election day.

UPDATE: The Hill is reporting this morning on another potential wild card in the GOP presidential race. Apparently former Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee) -- most recently of "Law & Order" fame -- is "exploring seriously" a bid for the GOP nomination.