It’s clear that when George W. Bush retires to his Texas ranch, he has a new career awaiting him as a writer of fantasy and science fiction. The President gave a speech, Thursday, at the National Endowment for Democracy and despite Bush’s shortcomings as an orator the audience was intrigued by his imaginative prose. Bush used the occasion to warn of a new threat to Western civilization, “a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.”
Consistency has never been George’s strong suit and he used this address to suggest yet another objective for the Iraqi invasion: Al Qaida wants to gain control of Iraq “which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror;” therefore, America’s goal is to deny them a safe haven. Depending upon how you count them, this is either the fourth or fifth new objective for the occupation. Bush’s original objective was to get Iraq’s WMDs. Next, his objective became building a stable Iraqi democracy. When the rise of insurgency brought this objective into question, the President’s goal became providing internal security. Most recently, George Bush argued that America must fight terrorists in Iraq, so that we don’t have to fight them in the U.S.
Thursday, Bush not only abandoned his “fight them there not here” rationale in favor of his new “deny them a launching pad” objective, but also provided fresh evidence that, rather than being bottled up in Iraq, the Al Qaida network has been busy across the globe and that the occupation has been counterproductive as terrorists are gaining new recruits. George W recounted the recent attacks in London and Bali, as well as related bombings in many parts of the world. He revealed, “the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious Al Qaida terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three Al Qaida plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more Al Qaida efforts to case targets in the United States or infiltrate operatives into our country.”
Despite touting the “progress” that his Administration has made against Al Qaida – claiming, once again, to have captured or killed most of the Al Qaida leadership – the President is now concerned that the radical Islamic empire may win in Iraq. “Overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence.” Thus he pledged to continue the occupation. “In Iraq, there is no peace without victory.”
George Bush’s penchant for fantasy was particularly evident when he outlined his “comprehensive strategy” to defeat terrorism. First, he claimed to have effectively organized the Federal government, “to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense.” Yet, the Administration’s disastrously ineffectual response to a natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina, illustrates that we are not prepared for another terrorist attack. Many of the problems that surfaced during the response to 9/11, such as the lack of a coordinated communication system, surfaced again in New Orleans.
Next, Bush declared that he is, “determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation.” Yet, the September 3, 2005, New Yorker magazine reviewed a new documentary, “Last Best Chance” sponsored by a bipartisan group; this film – which will begin showing on HBO beginning October 17th – makes the case, “Americans are no safer from a nuclear terrorist attack than we were on September 10, 2001.” Because Bush has been obsessed with Iraq, his administration has not dealt with the dire threat posed by the availability of nuclear materials resulting from the collapse of the former Soviet Union.
The President’s third point was that he is “determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes.” Yet, current intelligence indicates that Osama bin Laden is hiding in the mountainous areas of northwest Pakistan; nonetheless, Pakistani ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, remains a Bush favorite.
The fourth point is to deny the terrorists victory in Iraq. George proclaimed, “Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan.” Apparently, only the President has seen this plan. This month, House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, reported there still is no detailed strategy; Bush “has totally mismanaged our involvement.”
Finally, “The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East.” Once again, the facts suggest otherwise; opinion polls throughout the Middle East indicate that the U.S. is viewed with extreme disfavor and the “pro-democracy” movements in Egypt and Saudi Arabia have borne little fruit. Within Iraq, the average person wants us to leave; for example, a January Zogby poll found that, “82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiites favor US withdrawal either immediately or after an elected government is in place.” The same poll found that a majority of Sunni Arabs viewed the insurgency “as a legitimate form of resistance.”
In addition to demonstrating his stolid indifference to public opinion and to the defense of America, George W. Bush made two grievous errors in his October 6th speech. The first was to elevate the status of Al Qaida, to suggest that it is at the forefront of a broad movement that seeks to build an Islamic empire. This is factually wrong, and also conjures up counter-productive historical images, where Christian warriors fought Muslim nationalists in the Middle East. The second Bush mistake was to suggest that Iraqi forces under Al Qaida leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are so strong that they may actually seize control of Iraq. “Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?” There is no credible support for this contention. A September 23, 2005, report in the Christian Science Monitor indicated that foreign fighters “make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.” Certainly Zarqawi has a flair for macabre PR; nonetheless, members of Sunni Arab tribes, not Al Qaida, conduct the day-to-day insurgent fighting.
Having an overactive imagination is an excellent attribute for a fantasy writer, but an undesirable quality in a President of the United States. Bush’s latest explanation of why we should stay in Iraq – to fight the phantom Empire – is dangerously wrongheaded and blocks serious discussion of how we can withdraw in order to better defend America.