Just 206 Days Left: Skepticism over Bush’s Foreign Policy Goes Mainstream
By Mark Grueter
---------------------------------------
On September 11, 2001 America was attacked by al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization based in Afghanistan, protected by the Taliban government and headed up by Osama bin Laden. Appropriately, America countered the attack with an invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and to hunt down and punish bin Laden and his cohort. Two and a half years later we have the workings of a new government in Afghanistan but Osama bin Laden and most of the leaders of al-Qaeda are still out there.
The American/British invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified under the umbrella of a larger “war against terrorism,” which included the hunt for al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein may not have been behind the 9/11 attack but his regime sheltered and collaborated with terrorist groups. Not the terrorist group that attacked America on 9/11, but other terrorist groups, such as Abu Nidal’s organization.
There were, and have been for a long time, many good reasons to invade Iraq, and at this point, we all know the litany. But in the wake of recent official reports, along with former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 9/11 special commission, we know that resources were diverted from Afghanistan and the hunt for al-Qaeda to Iraq so that the American military would have the capacity to take down Saddam’s regime.
It just doesn’t make any sense for many reasons - one being that al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war and so any excuse of “retaliation” for 9/11 in this instance should not even have been hinted at. America may have the strongest military in the world, but its resources are not as vast as some imagine. Isn’t it just common sense to finish one job (Afghanistan/al-Qaeda) before you move on to another one (Iraq)?
Yes, there are/were terrorists in Iraq, but there are terrorists in several countries. The terrorist group that attacked America is al-Qaeda; it is therefore illogical to divert much needed resources from that battle before it is evident the opponent has been utterly defeated. I have yet to read/hear any of the leading hawks provide a clear explanation for this dereliction.
Richard Clarke’s most essential point, however, is even more alarming: 9/11 could have been prevented had the Bush Administration done its job properly. Clarke does not explicitly recognize this, but this is what his testimony - along with corroborating evidence - amounts to. Our government failed us on that day and not one person has been fired. Nobody has been held accountable. Why? Two weeks ago, Clarke became the first prominent official to apologize to the American people. Last week, on the other hand, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that much of the intelligence information he presented to the UN Security Council last year, when arguing for military intervention in Iraq, was “not…solid.” But he expressed no remorse.
Meanwhile, the death toll in Iraq, and in Afghanistan for that matter, continues to climb. Seven more recently ambushed just north of Baghdad, bringing the total up to 600 Americans killed since the war began last March. Iraqi deaths, as a result of the war, are well over 10,000. The ill timing of this war, because of the shift of resources away from what should be our primary target (al-Qaeda), and the bad intelligence used to take us into Iraq, make it extremely difficult to justify all of the mounting casualties and the general proliferation of chaos.
Clarke furthermore suggests that the invasion of Iraq has only made any broader “war against terrorism” that much more difficult to wage. This is primarily so because it has spawned dozens of new terrorist groups necessarily connected with al-Qaeda (such as the group that committed the recent Madrid atrocity). Many on the Left have argued this point as well, but coming from Clarke, even if it’s still hard to prove, the charge feels much more credible.
America may be fighting terrorists and other hooligans in Iraq right now, but these weren't the guys behind 9/11, and they’re not going to relent without a massive military presence and a long-term commitment; a commitment the American people and certainly the Bush team does not appear willing to make.
Back home, President Bush says he’ll only appear before the 9/11 commission if Dick Cheney is allowed to sit next to him and answer questions with him. In addition, he refused to testify under oath and/or in front of the public. How can he get away with this? Everyone else has to appear before the American people, but our number one elected official gets special privilege? Legally, there is nothing present that can force Bush to testify, but if he were really a man, he’d do it. If he’s asked a question that might compel him to reveal classified information all he has to do is say that he cannot answer. It is outrageous for this man, who is ultimately responsibility for us letting our guard down on 9/11, should not testify in public.
* * *
Meanwhile, the New York Times is reporting that John Kerry is looking to pick a running mate by May 1. Presumably, the four leading candidates are John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico and Governor Tom Visilack from Iowa. Edwards and Richardson would both be, in my view, great choices - both are tested and have appealing personalities. Gephardt was a terrible presidential candidate and there’s no reason to indicate why he wouldn’t be a terrible running mate. If Kerry picks Gephardt or the dull Visilack, I’ll probably vote for Nader, and my bet is that many others will as well. Kerry’s choice for Veep is hugely important; I hope he selects wisely.
Click here for the previous column.
---------------------------------------
Mark Grueter is a writer living in New York City. He may be contacted at [email protected].
©
2004 Me Three