Since the advance news of Bush’s first campaign commercial came out, I have been thinking of all the ways to respond to the statement that “some people are attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.” While I will undoubtedly have more to say if and when I actually see it, I do have a few comments in advance.

I haven’t heard anyone attacking anybody for attacking the terrorists, just as I don’t know anyone who does not support the troops (we all love those brave men and women, but some of us want to see them come home, or have sufficient income for their families, or not sacrifice their lives for no good reason, or perhaps even avoid being guinea pigs). There is, however, a wee bit of disagreement about who the “terrorists” actually are, or how best to attack them.

Are the terrorists those being held without charges in Cuba? Are the terrorists american citizens who need to be monitored a la Orwell? Are all foreign brown people terrorists? In some sense, could we be the terrorists? Like a virus, the “enemy” is everywhere, from caves to suburban American communities. The state of permanent emergency both reinforces and consolidates the power of a sub-faction of the republican party (the neo-cons) into an ever-evolving fascistic force, and dupes the American people into supporting them out of a sense of patriotism.

How best to “attack” the terrorists? Is anyone against international cooperation on the issue? When we have an immanent threat, or decent intelligence, there isn’t much squawking about it. No-one seemed to object to freezing assets, for example, or to targeting sites for a strike.

Speaking of attacks and strikes, let’s think on the term “preeemptive strike.” The term preemptive strike is being used in a very odd way by this administration. Traditionally, it is defined as an advance strike in the face of a justifiable sense of immanent danger – a clear and present danger. It conveys the sense of a quick strategic attack on a specific target (like a biological weapons factory or a nuclear missile launching site) in order to destroy any possibility that the enemy will meet its destructive objective.

The specific military strategic definition has also been expanded by the history of atomic weapons, and draws its power from the fear generated by nuclear proliferation and the hopes behind theories of deterrence. Fear of a first strike in such a context of possible apocalyptic consequence contributes to our national feeling that we can and should dictate who can and cannot possess nuclear weapons. More recently, of course, the nuclear fears have been extended to include all weapons of mass destruction, all of which we have ourselves (and that reminds me, I really have to write a piece on weapons of mass destruction).

In the case of Iraq, the “preemptive strike” does not meet the definition in any sense, although it draws considerable psychological power from it. We never found specific targets in Iraq, but instead used the language to justify complete invasion and takeover, in a quasi-corporate imperialistic and imperious manner driven less by humanitarian concern for the Iraqi citizens than political and economic concerns. It assumes that we have the power to take precedence. It gives contracts to its buddies, and avoids confronting the real issues. There is sufficient reason to believe that the administration simply wanted a war in Iraq despite (rather than because of) any intelligence they might muster. In this era of ambiguous “states” of war, it should be clear that the war in Iraq is a long way from being “over,” regardless of any statement to the contrary. In any case, taking over a nation does not solve the problem of terrorism. Additionally, we have now set a precedent that will be hard to break, not only with regard to our own country, but also with regard to any other country who could use the same argument.

How about a national discussion about the terrorists that the president supports? Sharon, for example? While Israel seems somewhat divided (in much the same way as our own country), there seems to be a general lack of accountability that is fair to blame on the nation, just as our own actions can be blamed on all of us. I never thought that I would become anti-Israel, but the nation of Israel has become its own shadow. Are they going to set up the ovens next? And isn’t this the primary reason that the terrorists are against us in the first place? We have a strange blindness with regard to this. There is certainly enough blame to go around in the middle east, but let’s use our weight to try to solve that problem. Just when it seemed that Bush was going to be a major player in doing so, he stepped back off the scene.

But I will say something good about President Bush. He spent Thanksgiving in Iraq and addressed some of the troops. I could be – and actually am – very cynical about that, but I’m brushing my criticism aside for the moment since that would erode my overriding judgment on the matter. Whatever his motivations, and I think there are many, it was still the right thing to do. It was uncommonly courageous on his part. As a psychological preemptive strike, it was a good one.