The Giuliani Hype

Because of his intimate connection with the events of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani is always treated by the media as some sort of foreign policy heavyweight. I've never understood this. Yes, Giuliani was a competent mayor, and he was a reassuring presence on television in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (I remember; I was there). But he was a mayor. His political experience consists of working with city council members and negotiating labor disputes. He has no more experience grappling with foreign policy issues than Howard Dean or Mark Warner (and considerably less experience than just about anyone who has served in Congress).

Not only that, but I've yet to hear Giuliani say anything even remotely original or insightful about any foreign policy issue. Rather, he can always be counted on to regurgitate whatever the current GOP talking point is on the subject at hand, whether it be Iraq, Iran, or terrorism. He's not even particularly eloquent or tactful about it. And sometimes he just goes off the reservation.

Take, for instance, the op-ed Giuliani wrote for the USA Today on Monday to commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Rather than use his allotted space to say something poignant or insightful about the tragedy with which he will forever be linked, he instead took the opportunity to make an inaccurate and somewhat troubling comparison. He devoted a number of paragraphs to linking al Qaeda terrorists and Chechen separatists, as if they were part of some unified terror network, and then seemed to suggest that we could learn a lot about fighting terrorism by following Russia's lead.

The people who consider democracy their enemy have not stopped fighting. They have not stopped killing. We cannot let down our guard.

This month brings us another sad anniversary, the second year since the siege at Beslan by terrorists. Imagine the kind of people who saw their intended targets -- schoolchildren -- enter for the first day of school laden with flowers for their teachers. Days later, those children would be so hungry they would eat those wilted flowers as the terrorists mocked them. Soon, many of the children and their parents would be dead.

Shortly after the siege ended, I happened to travel to the region. I was in Moscow on the day of the memorial gathering. Having recently endured a deadly takeover of a Moscow theater and the downing of commercial airliners, Russia's reaction was swift and overpowering. The war against radical Chechen Islamists continues, but Russia has won significant victories and seems to have turned the tide.

The Chechens have indeed embraced the most heinous of terrorist tactics in their ongoing struggle for independence, but that's about all they have in common with al Qaeda. The fighting between the Chechens and Russians is quite clearly about land, and Russia has engaged in indisputably brutal tactics in its efforts to reoccupy Chechnya, tactics which have drawn strong international criticism, including from us. Moreover, Vladimir Putin has used the ongoing war with Chechen separatists as an excuse to consolidate power and turn Russia into something closer to an authoritarian state than a democracy.

Is that really the comparison Giuliani wants to be making? Particularly on the anniversary of 9/11?

Never fear, though, because Giuliani's op-ed quickly returned to more familiar territory. He observed:

Some argue that the attacks continue because of the war in Iraq. But the attacks began decades before the Iraq war. Some argue that our enemies seek negotiation and understanding. But our enemies have made clear to us that what they seek is the annihilation of our most precious freedoms. . . . There are those over the past 30 years, and even to this day, who want to negotiate with the fanatic Islamic terrorists. But the fanatics don't want to negotiate.

Nice, isn't it? Giuliani uses his platform on 9/11 to engage in the crudest and most offensive (not to mention unoriginal) kind of strawman rhetoric. We're told that the debate in this country is between those who want to "negotiate" with the terrorists and those, like Giuliani, who understand just who we're dealing with. He even uses the "some argue" formulation to make his point. Karl Rove would be proud.

Needless to say, Giuliani's words were incredibly tasteless and insulting, especially on 9/11. Despite his undeserved reputation as a foreign policy expert, "America's mayor" actually sounds rather hackish whenever he talks about these issues. I still remember back in 2004, just before the election, when Osama bin Laden released his "October Surprise" video. Following the release of the video, nearly every politician (including Bush and Kerry themselves) had the decency (and tact) to refrain from publicly speculating about who Bin Laden wanted to win. Not Giuliani. He went on Meet the Press less than 48 hours before the polls opened and told Tim Russert that Bin Laden "certainly wants George Bush out of the White House. . . . that's one of the reasons he put in all those criticisms of President Bush." Not only was this an incredibly hackish thing to say, but as we know now, the CIA had reached the exact opposite conclusion, almost instantly (as had most intelligent people).

Despite all this, I don't have any particular qualms with Rudy Giuliani per se. I'd take him over Bush in a heartbeat. But he strikes me as more than a little out of his element when it comes to foreign policy. And that's supposed to be his strength. So I ask you this, particularly if you are a potential Republican primary voter: what exactly is it that Giuliani brings to the table when it comes to presidential politics? What would be the point of his candidacy? I just don't see it.