Thursday
Dec182008
Bush's Successful War on Terror: The Elephant Story
Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 15:13
Speaking at the US Army War College yesterday, President Bush declared:
That keep-the-faith statement reminds me of an incident a few years ago:
One could put the point that there are other reasons why there hasn't been a repeat of 11 September 2001. For example, it might be that Al Qa'eda --- given the massive upsure in US security measures --- went for "softer" targets from Indonesia to Morocco to Kenya. It might be that "terrorists" had far more lucrative campaigns, in publicity and in targets, in the US-fostered turmoil in Iraq. It might be that "terrorism", far from being a centrally-directed campaign against the US, was more a case of local and regional movements pursuing local and regional operations. And it might be because, with a range of co-operative measures --- measures that weren't necessarily led by the Bushian approach of rendition and torture --- other countries were able to curb terrorist planning.
Indeed, one might consider that Spain hasn't had a significant terrorist attack since March 2004: was this because Spain pursued illegal surveillance, detention, and torture? Or how about the UK since 7 July 2005? France, Holland, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, etc., etc. haven't had an attack at all during the Bush years: was this because they accepted his extra-legal methods?
I doubt, however, that any of this will concern the President. Because the way he's framed his cause-and-effect argument, he's in a no-lose situation. Consider: if there was a terrorist attack on the US in the next 35 days, would Bush follow his logic and say that it was because his "any means necessary" approach had failed? Or would he and his remaining supporters simply assert that, in the wake of such an attack, the need for surveillance/detention/torture is only reinforced?
While there's room for an honest and healthy debate about the decisions I made -- and there's plenty of debate -- there can be no debate about the results in keeping America safe. Here at home, we've prevented numerous terrorist attacks.
That keep-the-faith statement reminds me of an incident a few years ago:
I was walking on the High Street in Birmingham, and I noticed a fellow, seated on the ground, snapping his fingers. I had to ask him why.
"Keeping. The. Elephants Away. Keeping the Elephants. Away," he said in time to his snapping.
"But," I interjected, "there aren't any elephants within a 1000 miles."
He kept snapping, "See. It. Works. See. It. Works."
One could put the point that there are other reasons why there hasn't been a repeat of 11 September 2001. For example, it might be that Al Qa'eda --- given the massive upsure in US security measures --- went for "softer" targets from Indonesia to Morocco to Kenya. It might be that "terrorists" had far more lucrative campaigns, in publicity and in targets, in the US-fostered turmoil in Iraq. It might be that "terrorism", far from being a centrally-directed campaign against the US, was more a case of local and regional movements pursuing local and regional operations. And it might be because, with a range of co-operative measures --- measures that weren't necessarily led by the Bushian approach of rendition and torture --- other countries were able to curb terrorist planning.
Indeed, one might consider that Spain hasn't had a significant terrorist attack since March 2004: was this because Spain pursued illegal surveillance, detention, and torture? Or how about the UK since 7 July 2005? France, Holland, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, etc., etc. haven't had an attack at all during the Bush years: was this because they accepted his extra-legal methods?
I doubt, however, that any of this will concern the President. Because the way he's framed his cause-and-effect argument, he's in a no-lose situation. Consider: if there was a terrorist attack on the US in the next 35 days, would Bush follow his logic and say that it was because his "any means necessary" approach had failed? Or would he and his remaining supporters simply assert that, in the wake of such an attack, the need for surveillance/detention/torture is only reinforced?
tagged George Bush, Rendition, Surveillance, Torture in War On Terror
George Bush, Rendition, Surveillance, Torture in War On Terror
Reader Comments (6)
Indeed, one might consider that Spain hasn’t had a significant terrorist attack since March 2004: was this because Spain pursued illegal surveillance, detention, and torture?
------------------
Spain pulled its soldiers out of Iraq. Al-Qaeda didn't need to target Spain again after that. Al-Qaeda targeted the weakest link in the coalition and won.
Thanks, Dave. So you would agree that the war in Iraq, far from curbing terrorism, actually gave the terrorists a further cause and platform for their operations?
The "You are either with us or against us" mantra failed to mobilise the base (West) and failed to galvanize adequate support in the Middle East. The Bush administration came to grips with this by Autumn 2002. Smoking out the Taliban (which provided a safe haven for al-Qaeda) from Kabul failed to break the back of the network. The Iraq invasion was the result of the GROWING FRUSTRATION with the lack of progress in the so-called War on Terror. They had finally reached boiling point.
Invading Iraq and entrenching US forces in the region would coerce ME states. It was believed that the US, being the new kid on the ME block (and dominant power in the region), could gain significant leverage in dealing with intelligence agencies and militaries etc.
The invasion may have been a spectacular failure. It created the opposite effect and backfired - undermining the West's security (Spain, 7/7 etc) but I think these were the reasons behind it. Feel free to criticise. Let me know how far off the mark I am here.
I don't think the Iraq invasion was the result of growing frustration with the 'war on terror'. Members of the Bush administration were looking to Iraq within hours of the 9/11 attacks- before a war on terror had even been declared.
Members of the Bush administration were looking to Iraq within hours of the 9/11 attacks- before a war on terror had even been declared.
------------
I don't doubt that, but I still stand behind my statement for the reasons given in the previous post. The situation was hopeless by Autumn '02 and that fueled it. Baghdad rubs shoulders with Damascus and Cairo. It was that perfect target with which to inflict a massive psychological blow to the Muslim world. A Western zionist power taking control in Baghdad. Remember that the Muslim world had been riding on a high since the 1970s -- '87 Intifada, revolution in Iran, Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and '93 WTC bombings. Al-Qaeda credits itself for bringing down the Soviet Union. The next target was going to be the United States. That much was obvious.
RE Bush's Army War College speech (and all his similar claims of later):
The Al Qaeda leadership hardly looks at the current global situation, the west in economic meltdown, US and NATO mired in Afghanistan and uncertainty about the future of Iraq and honestly believes that it has failed in not launching a major attack against the US homeland since 9/11.
Of course the other side of the coin to suggest that by fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has taken the fight to the terrorists, but at what cost?
I agree Bush's argument is completely disingenuous.