Late last night as I was preparing to make my nightly overseas call to my wife and daughter, CNN interrupted regular programming with "Breaking News" from London. The news that broke late last night has now reverberated across the globe as travelers struggle to adjust to the new normal. It now appears that nearly five years after 9/11 those who would do us harm are still eyeing air travel as their primary target. It now appears that after five years of "fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here", we are still fighting "them" here.
My first thought last night upon hearing the news was how to bring my wife and daughter safely back to the United States. They are scheduled to return from Bangladesh through London’s Heathrow Airport in about a week and a half. I am now faced with the decision to either postpone their return flight, reroute them through another city, or to allow them to return via British Airways as originally planned. None of the choices appeal to me right now and I am sure to be a nervous wreck until I have my daughter within hugging distance. Such is my predicament and I am sure many others are facing similar concerns today.
So, why after 5 years and two wars later are we feeling no safer than we felt on 9/12/2001? President Bush would have us believe that the war in Iraq is making us safer and American soldiers are dying on Iraqi soil so that Americans here at home can enjoy our freedoms. If asked why these people are trying to kill us, Mr. Bush’s stock response is: "They hate us for our freedoms." On September 20, 2001, Mr. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress and declared:
Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
Americans are still asking that question. Why do they hate us? Five years later Mr. Bush still has no clue – except to repeat his well-worn talking point: they hate us for our freedoms. That answer simply is not good enough. In the wake of the disaster in Iraq, in the wake of the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, in the wake of hundreds of billions of dollars spent on a senseless war, in the wake of today’s arrests in London, we deserve an answer that is a little more than a talking point.
We also want to know who Mr. Bush thinks the "they" are. Today while the world adjusted to renewed fear, Mr. Bush read his talking points:
Speaking briefly on a visit to Wisconsin, Bush said the foiled plane plot was "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."
Who are these "Islamic fascists"? Why is the President of the United States using this opportunity to push neo-conservative talking points and labels. Are these "Islamic fascists" the Iraqi insurgents? Are they the Shia in Iraq? Are they the Iranians? Are they Hezbollah or Hamas? Is Bashar al-Assad of Syria an "Islamic fascist"? These are important questions, especially because at various times, the President of the United States has equated all these actors as the enemy in his War on Terror. In Mr. Bush’s eyes, all these actors are al Qaeda. From his worldview, the war in Iraq makes perfect sense – it is the collective "them" that he is crusading against. Reality is not so simple. It is Mr. Bush’s lack of understanding of the world around him that brings us to this day – a day of fear not the least bit lessened by his misadventure in Iraq. In fact, Mr. Bush by his rhetoric and by his actions gives fuel to extremism.
By conflating various disparate actors in the Middle East and the Muslim world into one "them", Mr. Bush inadvertently incites the very extremism he hopes to defeat. The disaffected extremist no longer has to pick which movement he feels solidarity with – he can now feel solidarity with all of them thanks to Mr. Bush. An Islamic extremist can now connect the dots between the plight of the Palestinians, the plight of the Iraqis, the plight of the Lebanese, the ambitions of Iran and Syria, the bombers in Bali, London, Madrid, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the rebels in Kashmir, the Chechens, the Somalis, and all the rest. They are all part of a collective that has been given unity by Mr. Bush’s rhetoric. Mr. Bush gives local conflicts global scope in his black and white universe. Extremists of the Muslim world, who are otherwise natural enemies in many cases, now have a common enemy and a collective cause thanks to Mr. Bush’s ready rhetoric. Mr. Bush’s "Clash of Civilizations" is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On the fundamental fight against al Qaeda and terrorists Mr. Bush has failed spectacularly. Today’s events in London are a stark reminder of this failure. The Bush Administration has spent American resources and lives in an ill-conceived and bloody romp through Iraq instead of fighting the extremists who mean to do us harm. The fight against extremism has always been about intelligence, police work, and international cooperation – and today’s arrests bear witness to that. Today’s arrests happened in spite of Bush Administration policy, not because of them. Mr. Bush’s idea of fighting terrorism is "staying the course" in Iraq. While he spends billions in Iraq, the real work of fighting terrorism is starved of resources. Nonetheless, Mr. Bush sees today’s events as a political opportunity. He and his advisors are in the midst of a full-bore attack on the Democrats to try to paint them weak on defense for wanting to leave Iraq. Still, somehow Mr. bush believes Iraq and today’s events are part of the same issue. He also apparently believes, come November, the American public will see it his way:
US President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections.
…
His remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn’t: News of the plot could soon break.
Vice President Dick Cheney and White House spokesman Tony Snow had argued that Democrats wanted to raise what Snow called "a white flag in the war on terror," citing as evidence the defeat of a three-term Democratic senator who backed the Iraq war in his effort to win renomination.
But Bush aides on Thursday fought the notion that they had exploited their knowledge of the coming British raid to hit Democrats, saying the trigger had been the defeat of Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut by an anti-war political novice.
…
"I’d rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn’t done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.
"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won’t "look as appealing" under the circumstances.
It remains to be seen whether the American public will once again cow down to the Bush Administration’s exploitation of fear this November.
Mr. Bush’s failures in the War on Terror have been many. While he spins the politics of fear to once again bludgeon the Democrats and the public, we should keep in mind the hundreds of billions spent in Iraq that might have been spent on fighting terror. Some stark examples of national security concerns that have been neglected while Mr. Bush "stayed the course" in Iraq are:
-
the search for Osama bin Laden.
-
the underfunding of homeland security in major American cities such as Washington, DC and New York.
-
underfunding of proper securing of Soviet era nuclear materials.
-
underfunding of rail transit security.
-
five years after 9/11, treating border security only as a political issue and not as a serious national security issue.
-
lack of adequate security for cargo on commercial flights.
-
lack of adequate security on cargo containers arriving at U.S. ports.
-
lack of attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (a fundamental grievance that fuels much of Islamic extremism).
-
lack of attention to conflicts in the Horn of Africa.
Instead of addressing the genuine national security concerns listed above, Mr. Bush has led us into a civil war in Iraq. Instead of fighting terror in Afghanistan, Mr. Bush has installed an Iranian proxy government in Iraq. And, today while most of the world worried if their loved ones would get home safely, Mr. Bush spent the day raising money for his political friends:
The president stuck with his itinerary, which included a plant tour and a fundraiser.
Bush used his visit to a metal stamping plant in Green Bay to promote the importance of tax cuts to the American economy.
Bush told workers at Fox Valley Metal-Tech that because small businesses are vital for economic growth, taxes for those businesses should be cut.
The president also attended a private fundraiser for John Gard in Oneida. Gard hopes to replace U.S. Rep. Mark Green as the 8th District representative.
A typical day for a Commander-in-Chief who sees politics when Americans feel fear. Stay the course, indeed.
