From the WSJ Opinion Archives

Terrorists and Broken Windows
Four years ago, just before allied forces liberated Iraq from the rule of international outlaw Saddam Hussein, this columnist delivered a pro-Iraq speech to the Fabiani Society. In it, we employed an analogy we thought would resonate with our New York audience:

The idea that finishing the Gulf War detracts from the terror war reminds me of the arguments we used to hear against quality-of-life policing. The objection went something like this: Why would you want cops to waste their time on "minor crimes" like panhandling, or subway fare-beating, or public urination? The police ought to be out catching murderers.
After the Giuliani years here in New York, it'd be hard to find anyone who doesn't acknowledge that public order prevents crime, and that public disorder, by creating an atmosphere of lawlessness and anarchy, encourages serious crime. This principle is no less applicable on the "Arab street" than on the streets of New York.
Terrorism does not occur in a vacuum; it is a product of the tyranny, misrule and fanaticism that prevail in much of the Arab and Muslim worlds. Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of the U.N.'s demands and its failure to do anything about it make a mockery of international law. What lesson can terrorists take from this but that this is a world without authority, a world in which the civilized nations will not act to protect themselves from those who would murder the innocent in the name of jihad?

Now Rudy Giuliani is running for president, and he is drawing a similar analogy. He has been arguing with the lovely and talented John Edwards, who, in a play for the votes of his party's extreme left, has denied that there is such a thing as a global war on terror. ABC News quotes Giuliani's dissection of the liberal mindset Edwards represents (we've deleted a comma and added the words in brackets to make Giuliani's meaning clearer):

"We are not in a war where the root cause of this war is poverty. Bin Laden comes from one of the richest families in the world," Giuliani added. "Mohamed Atta, who was the guy principally responsible for 9/11 was based in Germany and he was well educated. I don't think he was exactly drinking dirty water. And the reality is, is that [Democrats] are coming at it from their liberal mindset of what must cause crime and [the assumption that] they are not wrong about that. But terrorism is not caused by poverty. The Islamic terrorist movement, the root cause of it has to do with ideology and a perversion of religion, an idea that they are intolerant of the way we live. And to be a leader, if you lack clarity it is very very dangerous."

Liberal blogger Greg Sargent tries but fails to be dismissive, describing Giuliani's argument as "absurd and simplistic" and as evidence that "he has, well, no idea what the heck he's talking about." But, he concedes, "it's an argument all the same. We'll be hearing a lot of it. And if Dems don't rebut it, no one will."

So what is Sargent's rebuttal? He doesn't have one:

How should Dems handle it? We're [i.e., Sargent is] the first to admit that we're not terribly qualified to address this (we're hoping to do some reporting on the question going forward). But we're not sure whether the responses we've seen thus far--not the terrorism speeches, the responses--will cut it in the long run. Sure, it's cool that Edwards is making the point that Rudy equals more of Bush's disastrously awful policies. And perhaps Rudy can be counted on to reveal his inner buffoon and blow himself [sic!] in some way or another.
But should Dems really bank on that? Isn't more called for here, response-wise? Or is this sufficient for now? That's a question for all of you. Thoughts?

The first reply in the comment thread, from "CT Voter," pretty much sets the tone:

To Read the Full Story

Continue reading your article with
a WSJ membership

View Membership Options