Although one could find many ills caused by the U.S. military action in Iraq, this conquest has been beneficial for the Bush administration as a diversion from 9/11 and the real threat to this country.
Many commentators have rightly noted that our presence in Iraq has weakened our military's ability to respond to other threats, allowed al-Qaeda to use it as a rallying cry and recruiting boon, and emboldened North Korea and Iran. But for the Republicans in power, it has also provided a needed distraction. The fact stills remains that 9/11 happened under Bush's watch. And, no matter how many attacks Ashcroft and other officials supposedly thwarted, 9/11 still happened. According to Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and Bob Woodward (in their respective books), the administration did not adequately focus on terrorists and paid more attention to Iraq and other issues. Clarke was surprised at the executive branch's unwillingness to place appropriate resources on the matter and we all remember that August briefing that Bush officials ignored. To be sure, the Clinton administration bears some of the burden, but 9/11 plan still unfolded over 9 months of Bush, a period that included many warning signs coming into the CIA and FBI.
Some may say that this is history--and it is. But one of the purposes of history is to understand how the past functioned. We can also see current motives in coordination with past flaws. The Bush administration may be waging a widely misnamed "war on terror" but much of this looks simply like traditional military tactics combined with secrecy and torture. More than an actual policy, the war on terror is a justification--for domestic spying, for torture, and for the supremacy of the executive. A real "war on terror", that is a policy that seeks to prevent future attacks and to destabilize terror networks, would have done many things differently.
Firstly, such a policy may include the large-scale recruitment (and/or training) of Arab speakers. They can be used for intelligence gather and spying operations. Secondly, protection of our most vulnerable targets would be emphasized; these include increased port security (that means more money for the coast guard, not nativist insecurity over an Arab company running our ports), increased protection of chemical plants and nuclear reactors, as well as an effective screening policy that relies on innovative research and not wholesale denial. Moreover, such an anti-terror policy might seek to do something about nuclear proliferation, since it is the most powerful threat. Instead of eschewing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (as Bush did in 2001) or endorsing India's illegal nuclear program, Bush could have made strides in affirming the worldwide need to control (and never use) nuclear weapons. The administration's rhetoric on nuclear weapons appears closer to Goldwater than anyone else, and who can forget the false mushroom cloud references. Bush and his cohorts lack the necessary seriousness and vigilance than comes with a nuclear-armed reality.
Finally, a war on terror would include a campaign to change the world's image of America. If al-Qaeda was raging against western abuses of the political kind (and don't kid yourself and say that it's simply our way of life), then maybe we should begin to understand how people like them think. One important way to control this problem is by eliminating the demand, just as is the case with drugs. If we can find a way to lessen the demand for bin Laden's hateful ideas, then we may be on the path to lessening the use of terror. Instead of doing this, we inflame the Arab and Muslim world by torturing its citizens, invading one of its countries, showing wholesale indifference toward their feelings, and trying to export our way of life. In fact, many Muslims see "democracy" and "freedom" as antithetical to Islam itself. It's not that they "hate freedom," it just that they believe it to be an epithet for Western decadence or chaos. Many of the U.S. foreign actions since 9/11 constitutes not a war on terror, but a war that bolsters the U.S. economy, shrouds the executive in the justification of wartime secrecy, and ultimately avoids the very thing that attacked us nearly five years ago.
We must remember that the only unprovoked attack on the U.S. was that of September 11th. Even that action by bin Laden could be viewed as response to U.S. attacks against him in Sudan. But bin Laden's actions were criminal in its targeting of civilians. It also caused the U.S. to enter into a new era. But we failed to understand 9/11 and our government has failed us in its response to that horrifying event. The Bush administration has been thoroughly reactionary, preempting our freedoms in the name of security that they fail to provide. I may posit that the war on terror is merely a justification for secrecy, a secrecy that shrouds the administration's sins, such as their failure to heed the al-Qaeda threat as well as their pre-9/11 emphasis on Iraq and mid-East restructuring to ensure oil flow and Israeli safety. Significantly, until now, the war issue has also been used by Republicans to win campaigns. Through emphasizing their claim to protect the U.S., the always-trying-to-seem-tough Bush (and those who rallied behind him) won elections. The distraction from the the real threat (that of terrorists and a radicalized Muslim populace) has not only weakened the U.S. but provided the Bush administration with cover. Unfortunately, we will suffer these mistakes for years to come.
