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