IGNORED? THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED BEFORE THEY WERE SUGGESTED:

Now for the hard part: America needs a global strategy to fight not only Al Qaeda but the radical ideology it represents. Has anyone in the Bush and Kerry campaigns read Chapter 12 of the 9/11 Commission Report? (Walter Russell Mead, August 29, 2004, Boston Globe)

IN ALL THE BROUHAHA over the recommendations for intelligence reform contained in the 9/11 Commission Report, the commission's most important and sweeping recommendations - those on foreign policy - have been largely ignored.

Those recommendations, which appear in Chapter 12 of the report, entitled "What To Do? A Global Strategy," go far beyond reforming the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community. They lay out a plan for fighting and winning the war on terror. Who is the enemy? What do they want? And how can we win? These are the questions the commission tries to answer in Chapter 12.

"Our enemy," the commission notes, "is twofold: al Qaeda, a stateless network of terrorists that struck us on 9/11; and a radical ideological movement in the Islamic world. . .." In short, says the commission, "the United States has to help defeat an ideology, not just a group of people. . .. How can the United States and its friends help moderate Muslims combat the extremist ideas?"

These are the issues the presidential election needs to be about - but so far neither presidential campaign seems to want to put them front and center. Senator Kerry, who says he has accepted "all" of the report's recommendations, hasn't said whether the recommendations in Chapter 12 - which amount to the first systematic attempt by a bipartisan group to develop a new grand strategy for a new kind of war - are included in that blanket endorsement. President Bush, for his part, has said surprisingly little about how he will prosecute the war on terror if he wins a second term.

Vote near, Saudis push to modernize (Charles A. Radin, August 29, 2004, Boston Globe)

Even as Saudi Arabia struggles internally with violent extremists and externally with its image as the country that produced most of the attackers of Sept. 11, 2001, the desert kingdom's rulers are moving on multiple fronts to modernize and moderate their nation.

Partial local elections are scheduled, starting in October, for the first time in the kingdom's history.

A series of highly publicized national dialogues is opening public discussion on religious and social topics, ranging from the sensitive to the previously taboo.

Women are increasingly outspoken in asserting their rights to participate in society, both economically and politically.

And the rigid religious hierarchy that a few years ago was sending morality police into the streets to enforce an extremely strict version of Islam is seeing its powers erode.

None of this means irrevocable change has occurred toward moderation or liberalism in Saudi Arabia, the world's most austere Muslim nation. Critics say that the pace is far too slow and that change is coming not because it is seen as good for the average citizen but because since Sept. 11, the United States is demanding it.

It's hard to criticize Mr. Mead for not reading the Globe, but you'd think its editors might have noted that their front page piece on Saudi reform directly contradicts their lead Ideas piece. The Bush administration has: dispatched two Middle Eastern tyrannies; forced a change in the behavior of Libya's regime; driven such a wedge between Yassir Arafat and his own prime ministers that he is now thought of by even the Palestinians as superfluous; negotiated a Free Trade agreement with Morocco; established radio and television outlets in the region; formulated a Middle Eastern democracy initiative; forced crackdowns on Islamicists in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; etc.; etc.; etc.

Chapter 12 adds nothing to that mix. He's right about Senator Kerry though.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 29, 2004 4:14 PM