The Bush administration is having a tough time as of late. Public support for the Iraq war has reached the lowest levels ever. More then half of respondents to recent polls now think going into Iraq was a mistake. And only 32% approve of the way Bush is handling the war.
So what does Bush do? Does he admit we made a mistake and try to rectify it? Nope. He decides to try the tactic that worked so well for him in the past: Fear.
For those who may have missed it, the drumbeat of terror started early the first week of October. Senior White Houses aides reported, “a quick exit for US troops could sow a deadly harvest of future terror attacks on US soil.” Vice President Cheney reiterated that theory by cautioning that Iraq would become a staging ground for future terror attacks on the US should troops withdraw too early. Bush parroted this assessment at a Tuesday press conference in his usual style of grammatical incorrectness: “We also got [sic] to continue to make sure we meet our obligations to prevent further terrorist attacks. Iraq is part of the global war on terror.”
Bush’s “major” speech.
On Thursday of that week, Bush made what the administration said was a “major” speech from the National Endowment for Democracy. This speech was thought to be a chance for Bush to lay out a clear exit strategy for Iraq and start to bring our troops home. Sadly that is not what Bush used the speech for.
The speech contained pretty much the same rhetoric that Bush and company have been spouting for the last five years. Little of what was said was really new, aside from the “revelation” that the US had foiled at least 10 terror plots during 2002-2004 (more on this later). One wonders why he made the speech at all. But there was a reason. This speech was carefully crafted to do several things, not the least of which was to allay concerns over the situation in Iraq.
First the speech was designed to re-inject terror into the American psyche. Rather then talk about the realities in Iraq, Bush opted to wax philosophically about terror. He spoke of how the extremists are no longer content with just attacking us, now they are bent on ruling the world. He says that they want to control Iraq in order to enslave whole nations, to establish a “radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.” Bush even resurrected Bin Laden (when was the last time you heard him mention Osama?).
Then there were those “foiled” terror plots.
There has been some debate on this issue. The sketchy details given by the White House make it hard to judge how serious the plots really were. Some plots seemed to have never moved into the actual planning phase. That begs the question: Can the US claim it “foiled” a plot if it never makes past the theoretical stage? Also suspect is the timing of these revelations. Why wasn’t the public informed then? The answer to that is simple: politics. The administration sat on this info until it was needed. Not to inform the public of continuing threats but to try to give a much needed boost to the President's diminishing approval ratings. One wonders if, perhaps at some future point when the President’s ratings continue to slide toward the negative, the Bush administration will trot out Osama in chains to bolster Dubya’s image.
Bush even brought up the specter of a since dead and buried enemy: communism. This just shows the desperate measures to which the President will stoop to in order to pray on the fears of the public. And if nothing else, it was one more “ism” to add to list of “isms” Bush cited in his speech.
Something else I find contemptible about Bush’s speech, aside from the fear-mongering, was Bush’s refusal of accountability for our actions. He contends that no action by our government or its allies, now or in the past, ever contributed to the actions of our enemies, ever. According to Bush, neither our presence in Saudi Arabia nor Lebanon nor Israel’s presence in the West Bank ever had anything to do with any terrorist attacks anywhere.
Bush makes this claim despite a
Pentagon report released late last year that suggests otherwise.
'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'
You also must consider who has been the principal victims of recent terror attacks: Australians in Bali, Britons in London, Spaniards in Madrid, Egyptians in Sinai, and Israeli's in Tel Aviv. All of these places have one thing in common. They are US allies or client states that are currently involved in military actions in the Middle East.
All because invading Iraq didn’t anger the American people (at least not initially) doesn’t mean that no one was angered by it. To claim that the US and its allies are above reproach for any of our actions only solidifies the stereotype that we are an arrogant, self-serving, hypocritical nation.
Bush also used the speech to once again dismiss calls for withdrawal.
"Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now…It's a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?"
While the prospect of Bin Laden and Zarqawi taking control of Iraq is a scary one, Bush continuously fails to point out that he help create that scenario.
In "The Universe According to Bush", the US went to Iraq to combat Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network (one of no less then 27 rationales for war according to a study conducted by a University of Illinois student in 2004).
Granted, Zarqawi's Al Qaeda affliated group, Ansar Al-Islam, was in Iraq prior to the US invasion. But they were in the northern No Fly Zone, an area that was largely outside of government control. By toppling the regime, the US in fact
expanded Zarqawi’s area of operations.
Bush’s argument that we must stay in Iraq to stop the spread of terrorism belies the fact that the war has in fact contributed to it. From the current head of the CIA, Porter Goss:
“The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists. Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraq conflict to recruit new, anti-U.S. jihadists."
By focusing on removing Saddam from power, the US has in a sense, helped Al-Qaeda move from the foothills of Afghanistan to the streets of Iraq. There is a consensus in the intelligence community that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the primary training ground for global jihadists. That was not the case before the invasion and to suggest otherwise is to ignore the current reality that is taking place there.
Now don’t get me wrong, Saddam was a bad man. No one is denying that fact. He and his regime ruled their citizenry with an iron, and often bloody fist. But we did have something in common, that is, the fear of militant Islam. Saddam was a passionate secularist. Many of the more brutal acts of his regime were carried out against Islamic militants and the governments supporting them. The US secretly supported Saddam during his war with Iran because we feared militant Islam more. It is also the reason the US left Saddam in power after liberating Kuwait in the first Gulf War.
So what does Bush Jr. do? He makes the case to remove the only safeguard against militant Islam taking hold in Iraq. Way to go G.W.
The address also sought to “hype up” the threat posed by foreign fighters in Iraq. To hear Bush tell it, all members of the Iraqi insurgency are foreign terrorists. But recent intelligence assessments say that less then 10% of the insurgency is comprised of foreign jihadists. So really, for the most part, we aren’t fighting “militant jihadists” as Bush and company would have you believe but rather pissed off Iraqi’s.
Senior civilian commanders like to focus on the role of foreign fighters for several reasons. First is media attention. Homegrown insurgents prefer to use small arms and roadside bombs targeted specifically at occupation forces. Suicide bombings targeted at both the military and civilians are the tactic of choice for the jihadists. The spectacular nature of these incidents garners more media attention then small arms clashes with US troops. Second, it is much easier to blame foreign fighters then to develop better counterinsurgency strategies.
There is also a political aspect. By blurring the distinction between foreign fighters and indigenous insurgents, Bush can continue to make the claim that Iraq is now the front lines in the war on terror.
As Senate Minority Whip, Dick Durbin says in response to the address: "I believe the president has offered America a false choice between resolve and retreat. The real choice is between the strategy of accountability and more vague generalities. We must move beyond the policies of fear to a forceful commitment to protect the United States and its values.”
Fear and terror have been the tools of the trade for the Bush administration for the last five years. Chances are, as long as they continue to work for them, they will continue to exploit the fears of the American public. This “major” speech is just the latest desperate act of a failed President to scare America. Luckily more and more Americans are wising up if the recent polls are any indication.
Update: A letter reportedly from Ayman Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's second in command, to Zarqawi was recently intercepted. The letter seems to downplay the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, as well as their ambitions for Iraq that were discussed in Bush’s Oct. 6 address.
The "Zawahiri" letter expresses concerns that an American withdrawal from Iraq would have serious consequences for their goals. They worry that once the US withdraws it may prompt the "mujahedeen" to "lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal." They see withdrawal as a set back in their goal to establish an Islamic "caliphate", something far less expansive then the regional empire Bush spoke of in his speech.
The letter also seems to indicate that Al-Qaeda is strapped for cash. It asks their operatives in Iraq to send $100,000 to help hedge cash shortages. Also addressed in the letter were concerns over the videotaped beheadings of Western captives and the targeting of Shiites by suicide bombers. Zawahiri scolds Zarqawi for declaring a war on Shiites, fearing a backlash from locals.
Indeed, the current make up of the insurgency suggests a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mentality. Sunni’s, who are thought to make up most of the insurgency, tolerate the foreign jihadists only because they are fighting against US occupation forces. If troops were to withdraw, it is quite possible the Sunni’s would turn on and expel the jihadists.
Yet Bush continues to argue for staying the course. I think Al-Qaeda’s leaders would agree with that strategy.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
