Monday, April 24, 2006

Parsing the War on Terror

I have, of late, had a number of conversations with my left-leaning friends on the progress and nature of the War on Terror. First, let me say that errors, numerous ones in fact, have been made. Second, every Presidential administration since Jimmy Carter, has failed us in the battle for our very existence. Even one of my personal heroes, Ronald Reagan, bears fault in this regard. That all said, that we are at war is not in doubt, although Kool-Aid drinkers from both sides of the political spectrum differ as to what can now be done to combat Islamic fascism. The political right apparently believes that we can contain the spread of this abhorrent evil without protracted killing, and the political left seems to think that this is a job for law enforcement, which will dissipate if we just bring the troops home. The right is populated by people who are afraid to do the killing that needs to be done for fear of seeming to be unmitigated warmongers. Meanwhile, the left has what appears to be a majority of people who are very smart, well-meaning compassionate souls who are simply unaware that there are carnivores loose in the world who cannot be assuaged with niceties of any sort.

Many people, I am sure, will take umbrage at my statement that this war has been going on for at least 30 years. As a quick refresher let us remember that the Iranian hostage crisis was undertaken by radical mullahs. The Beirut bombings of embassies and, later, a USMC barracks were ordered by militant Islamists. Five years later an Islamic insurgency group occupied the Philippine island of Mindanao, and American forces from the Rapid Deployment Force fought protracted battles to unseat them. As the nineties dawned the World Trade Center was bombed, and as it ended US embassies in Africa were leveled. This was followed by the attack on the USS Cole and, finally, and most spectacularly, the events of 9/11. This is by no means a comprehensive list. It leaves out the various airline hijackings, and, in one case, an act of piracy, that made headlines, as well as the reprehensible actions at the Munich Olympics. I listed them as I did so as to highlight direct attacks on US interests and personnel.

The administrations of Carter, Reagan and the first George Bush seemed to think that the emerging threat was something that would prove to be bothersome, but that it could be contained. By the early nineties the official policy had become one of tracking, catching and prosecuting these miscreants as if they were bank robbers. That notion effected the Clinton administration response to the multiple terrorist attacks which occurred on his watch. He ordered cruise missile attacks on sites at times that would minimize casualties, but still send a message. Most notably, he specifically turned down two or three opportunities to capture or, I would argue more reasonably, kill Osama bin Laden. The official word was that before the '98 embassy bombings there was not sufficient evidence to convict him in a court of law. This attitude apparently reached its zenith when a secret data mining operation uncovered evidence of a cell operating inside the US before 9/11. Mohammad Atta, and several other 9/11 hijackers, were raised as persons of interest by the members of Operation Able Danger, but were allegedly told to forget that because no legal right existed to investigate them. No response, not even a perfunctory one, was made to counter the attack on the Cole.

George W. Bush took office after an election that divided the nation. Save your crayon letters about the vote count. The New York Times undertook an extensive, exhaustive investigation and determined Bush won Florida by about 1,000 votes. That did not make multiple front pages, or any at all in fact, because it wouldn't sell papers. So, anyway, the Bush administration took office and proceeded to do absolutely nothing about the Cole. Word is that any response would only be seen as wagging the dog. The two sides can not seem to agree if material gathered in FBI investigations, that uncovered suspicious instances of Middle Easterners taking flying courses, was passed along to the incoming administration. The FBI dropped the ball in some form, whatever the outcome, because people wanting to learn to fly, but not land, airliners should have sounded every alarm bell we have. The most prolific, if albeit asinine statement I have heard, is that 9/11 happened when Bush was president, so it's all his fault. That's akin to saying multiple people stepped over a crime victim lying in the street, but the doctor who saw him in the ER hours later is solely responsible for his death from blood loss. I am not arguing that focus was lost by the Bush administration, it was, but they do not bear all, or even most of the responsibility for the mess we are in. They oversaw the tragic events of 9/11, botched an opportunity to deliver a knock-out blow in Afghanistan and then compounded that mistake by refusing to fight the war we are in, the way it must be fought, in Iraq.

I do not pretend to have all the answers, nor, even, a plurality of the questions. What I do know is that the finger pointing, for political advantage, must stop if we are to survive as a nation and a people. If those who vociferously avow hatred for President Bush would focus that animus at our common enemy, in more than just a yellow ribbon kind of way, we could defeat this all encompassing threat. And if those who religiously parrot the republican party line would begin holding all our elected officials responsible, not just the ones across the doctrinal aisle, we could unite. Sadly, the amount of killing which must be done is unpalatable to those in power, on either side, and the liberal apologists somehow have failed to learn history's lessons regarding appeasement. Winston Churchill famously said, "Appeasement is feeding the crocodile in the hopes that he eats you last." I can only hope that it is not too late for the loyal opposition to learn that lesson, and that the party in power accepts the heavy-lifting, much as Harry Truman did, and does what must be done.

No comments: