There is no +óGé¼+ôWar on Terror+óGé¼-¥

By: David Campbell
Published On: 9/12/2006 1:53:49 PM

President Bush uses phrases that are designed as marketing ploys for partisan political advantage.  Democrats ought to stop accepting his frame.

There is no +óGé¼+ôWar on Terror+óGé¼-¥

There really is no such thing as a +óGé¼+ôwar on terror.+óGé¼-¥  +óGé¼+ôWar+óGé¼-¥ is armed conflict between two or more nations.  +óGé¼+ôTerrorism+óGé¼-¥ is a tactic.  +óGé¼+ôWar on terror+óGé¼-¥ is an oxymoron.  It is a meaningless phrase, a +óGé¼+ôwar+óGé¼-¥ with no end and no hope for victory. 

In reality, we are engaged in an ideological struggle with radical fundamentalist Islam.  This is a small, decentralized faction.  The best strategy would be to isolate and marginalize that faction.  The foreign policy of the Bush administration has done nothing but achieve the goals of the Islamic terrorists.

Terrorism is a tactic used only by the weak.  It is militarily ineffective.  The U.S. could not be defeated by terrorism.

Terrorism is not effective in ideological persuasion either.  For example, the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances, but the terrorist tactics used by their radical supporters makes it extremely difficult to sympathize with their cause.

The chief goal of terrorism is terror.  It achieves its goal only to the extent that the targeted population gives in to fear.  The most effective response to terrorism is to downplay the threat, to minimize the power of the terrorists, and to demonstrate that terrorism has little effect.  As President Roosevelt said, +óGé¼+ôwe have nothing to fear but fear itself.+óGé¼-¥  The terrorists should be treated as petty criminals, hunted down and dealt with quietly and efficiently.

President Bush has instead chosen to do the opposite, helping the terrorists achieve their goal of instilling terror.  He has made terrorism the central focus of his foreign and domestic policy.  He has exaggerated the threat and elevated the prominence of individual leaders.

The obvious reason for this is political expedience.  When the public is fearful, they tend to rally behind a strong leader to protect them.  Bush has used the threat of terrorism to consolidate presidential power, erode civil liberties, and stifle dissent.  He has used terrorism to justify everything from tax cuts to rolling back environmental regulations.

There needs to be a realistic risk assessment.  Statistically, Americans are more likely to be killed by lightning than by terrorism.  Air travel is still among the safest modes of transportation.  Car accidents, smoking, and air pollution each account for many more deaths per year than the 9/11 terrorist attack.

The problem for Bush is that fear is a difficult emotion to sustain over time.  It tends to wear off in the absence of a real threat.  Bush has +óGé¼+ôcried wolf+óGé¼-¥ for so long now that it is no longer as effective in maintaining his support.

There is no +óGé¼+ôWar in Iraq+óGé¼-¥

President Bush received a lot of scorn for prancing around in an Air Force flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier and declaring +óGé¼+ômission accomplished,+óGé¼-¥ but he was right.  There was a war in Iraq.  We won.  It was over when Baghdad fell, and consummated by the capture of Hussein.  Since then, it has been a military occupation.

In the words of General Douglas MacArthur, +óGé¼+ôNothing is gained by military occupation.  All occupations are failures.+óGé¼-¥

The radical fundamental Islamists are following the same model they used against the Russians in Afghanistan.  Bush took the bait; hook, line, and sinker.  As long as we occupy Iraq, it will continue to weaken our military, cost American lives, and bankrupt our treasury.

The military occupation of Iraq also achieved several other goals of the radical Islamic fundamentalists: It strengthened the Islamic fundamentalist state of Iran as a regional power by weakening their greatest regional enemy.  It removed Hussein, a secular leader who had suppressed the fundamentalists, and opened the door to the creation of another Islamic state in Iraq.  Our occupation of their holy land serves their propaganda purposes, portraying the U.S. as the enemy of all of Islam, recruiting terrorists, and weakening the positions of moderate Moslems around the world.

On the other hand, the occupation of Iraq has greatly benefited a few large corporations that have had previous association with the Bush administration, such as Halliburton.

Americans are also paying more for gasoline at the pump.  Of course, the President doesn+óGé¼Gäót set gas prices.  Prices are determined by supply and demand on the world market.  Our military incursion in Iraq disrupted the flow of oil from one of the world+óGé¼Gäós biggest oil producers, reducing supply.  As a result, American oil companies are enjoying record profits.  Saudi oil companies have also benefited from our continuing dependence on foreign oil, indirectly providing more funding for terrorists.  In his State of the Union address, Bush declared that we are +óGé¼+ôaddicted to oil.+óGé¼-¥  He was right.  Admission of addiction is the first step toward recovery.  We need a major effort to improve energy efficiency and develop alternative renewable sources.

There is no +óGé¼+ôHomeland Security+óGé¼-¥

There is no real +óGé¼+ôhomeland security.+óGé¼-¥  The truth is that a determined group of terrorists could strike at almost any time, and there is almost nothing we can do to stop it.  Our country is too large, with long borders.  A +óGé¼+ôBerlin wall+óGé¼-¥ across our border with Mexico won+óGé¼Gäót protect us.  There are too many potential targets.  We have many freedoms (which used to be considered a good thing).  Even totalitarian states can+óGé¼Gäót stop terrorism.

The best way to prevent terrorist attacks is through good intelligence work and coordinated communication between agencies.  This also requires close cooperation with our allies (who Bush has gone out of his way to alienate).

It does not require warrentless wiretapping.  Bush has admitting multiple violations of federal law (which used to be considered an impeachable offense).  The FISA law allows wiretapping of suspected terrorists under court approval.  The FISA court has nearly always approved requests, and even has provisions for retroactive approval when necessary.

It does not require violation of the Geneva Conventions for secret prisons, holding people (even American citizens) indefinitely without due process, or torture.

Bush has taken some steps to secure airline travel, but these have been more cosmetic than effective.  There is still no screening of cargo, for example.

Almost five years after the terrorist attack of 9/11, Bush has still not implemented most of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.  The Department of Homeland Security added a layer of bureaucracy rather than more coordination.  There are limited protections for ports, chemical plants, or nuclear power plants.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden (who, unlike Hussein, was actually involved in the terrorist attack of 9/11) is still at large, and Bush has disbanded the CIA unit assigned to find him.  Capturing or killing him now would only have symbolic value, since the terrorists are decentralized.

The U.S. is no safer from terrorist attack than we were prior to 9/11.


Comments