September 18, 2006
Bush's Incompetent War on Terrorism*
If you went up to a football fan and told him that his favorite team would win eight games this year, seven next year, three the year after that, and then go winless four and five years from now, do you think he'd find that "acceptable?" Would he "settle" for a horrible record like that?
Of course not. In fact, the fan would say that the general manager and entire coaching staff would have been fired after the third season.
So if I told a Republican on September 12, 2001, that al-Qaeda, an Afghanistan-based terrorist group led by Osama bin Laden - and protected by the Taliban - was responsible for the previous day's attack, and over the next five years, George Bush would...
1. Cut and run from Afghanistan within six months by pulling out
This would allow the Taliban to return, al-Qaeda to reform globally, the opium crop to soar, the corrupt government Bush put in place would be a sham, the country outside of Kabul would be controlled by the Taliban, the warlords and the opium (while he's bragging about "elections" and "democracy"), and two-thirds of the American soldiers killed and three-quarters of our wounded would be suffered from January, 2004 through September, 2006.2. Divert from the war against al-Qaeda by deliberately lying
If you went up to a football fan and told him that his favorite team would win eight games this year, seven next year, three the year after that, and then go winless four and five years from now, do you think he'd find that "acceptable?" Would he "settle" for a horrible record like that?
Of course not. In fact, the fan would say that the general manager and entire coaching staff would have been fired after the third season.
So if I told a Republican on September 12, 2001, that al-Qaeda, an Afghanistan-based terrorist group led by Osama bin Laden - and protected by the Taliban - was responsible for the previous day's attack, and over the next five years, George Bush would...
1. Cut and run from Afghanistan within six months by pulling out some troops and resources so he can go on a wild goose chase in Iraq.
This would allow the Taliban to return, al-Qaeda to reform globally, the opium crop to soar, the corrupt government Bush put in place would be a sham, the country outside of Kabul would be controlled by the Taliban, the warlords and the opium (while he's bragging about "elections" and "democracy"), and two-thirds of the American soldiers killed and three-quarters of our wounded would be suffered from January, 2004 through September, 2006.2. Divert from the war against al-Qaeda by deliberately lying, misleading and scaring the country into an unnecessary war in Iraq that will not only turn into a colossal disaster, but also give Iran the opportunity to reconstitute their nuclear program and spread their radical Islamic fundamentalism throughout the region.
3. Deplete and dangerously overstretch the military.
4. Create more terrorists every day.
5. Fail to protect our ports, chemical facilities, nuclear power plants and oil refineries and reserves.
6. Fail to implement most of the homeland security recommendations the commission investigating the attack will call for.
7. Spy on Americans without a warrant and imprison American citizens indefinitely without access to a lawyer and without charges ever being filed.
8. Cut taxes while we're fighting not one, not two, but three wars (if you also count the "global" war on terror) and explode the budget deficit and debt in the process.
9. Squander all the sympathy and support the world will be offering and turn it completely around to the point where we were despised.
Also...
10. The nation's credibility would be in shreds and our relationship with our allies would be strained.
11. Al-Qaeda would commit over 30 terrorist attacks worldwide.
12. Osama bin Laden wouldn't be captured and in 2006 the Pentagon would close the office in charge of tracking him down.
13. Targeted cities such as New York would have their homeland security aid cut.
14. Terrorists would be threatening us with water bottles and lipstick.
...what do you think the Republican would say?
Probably something like, "Not a chance. Thank God we don't have a liberal President because Bush will go after those guys who did this by blowing them off the map. And we'll win this war, definitely by 2006."
But here we are five years later and that is Bush's record on al-Qaeda and the "war on terrorism." And Republicans not only "approve" of Bush's "performance," they're spinning it!
Huh?
Do they really find his record "acceptable?" Would they really have "settled" for "all this progress" five years ago?
Of course not. But by all means, fire that general manager and coaching staff!
You don't have to be a quarterback to realize that we're getting beaten in this war, and getting beaten badly. What phonies (why do I get the impression that if it was Bill Clinton that failed to even try and prevent the 9/11 attacks, tried desperately to absolve himself of all blame for it, and had this horribly incompetent record five years later against the terrorist group responsible for it, they wouldn't be such blatant hypocrites?).
Other then talking tough (like a schoolyard bully), what exactly has Bush done in this war? Sure he gets credit for killing a few terrorists and capturing a few. But he hasn't prevented a single Muslim from becoming a terrorist; and, not coincidentally, we're still very much threatened.
So are we really safer? Does Bush really have the terrorists on the run?
After you finish laughing, continue reading.
How can Bush be doing a "good job" when there's one terrorist threat/scare after another (either they're legitimate or the White House is highlighting them for political reasons. Which is it, Republicans?)?
Naturally, mindless and gullible Republicans support Bush's "kill 'em all" strategy because "you can't make deals with 'crazy Muslims' who only want to kill you." But since the Republican solution to every domestic problem is to either "cut taxes" or "get big government out of our lives," it proves they're incapable of intelligent, creative or imaginative thought to begin with.
So when all they can come up with in response to 9/11 is to kill, bomb, torture and wiretap without a warrant, we shouldn't be surprised because ignorant, impractical, immature, vengeful and unconstitutional "thoughts" are all you're going to get out of them.
What's ironic is that those "crazy Muslims" would say that they "couldn't make deals with those 'crazy Americans' because all Bush wants to do is kill" them (Republican logic and hypocrisy allows them to conveniently overlook that).
What Republicans and their moronic base fail to realize is that the impulsive reactions of a bully never work. And there were a number of strategies, plans and ideas Bush could have put forth soon after the attacks that would have been a lot more effective against al-Qaeda and terrorism in general. And had he done so, we'd be much better off today. And I'll prove it.
This is a war unlike any other in world history. It's not about regaining land and it's not about retribution. It can't be because al-Qaeda doesn't have a regime to protect or a country to defend. And going after them as such would be like suing a homeless person. So this is a war about ideas (which automatically puts us at a disadvantage with Bush). Therefore, it must be fought unlike any other war in history.
As bad as 9/11 was, a real President would have taken advantage of the sympathy and support even the Arab world was offering by opening an honest dialogue with them. And he could have gotten it started by traveling to the Mideast and holding a series of town hall meetings with young Muslims where he could have explained our side of the story while trying to understand their side.
Maybe we'd learn something. And maybe they'd learn something from him.
Bush's meetings could have been followed up every few months with a delegation of about half a dozen that would include former Presidents, the Vice President (alright, maybe not Cheney), current and former cabinet and congressional members, European leaders, and non-politicians such as authors, historians, clergymen, and most important, business leaders, such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Walmart President and CEO, Lee Scott.
These meetings - televised throughout the Arab world - could have explained to the entire region why it's important to offer educational and economic opportunities to everyone, and counterproductive to offer such empowerment to only half their population; because in the 21st century, women must be allowed to play a role in their own countries development and revitalization.
And once they break free from their past, embrace openness and transparency, cooperate fully against terrorism and support the Israeli and Palestinian peace process, the United States would offer these countries a place in the globalized world - just like we did with China - where goods and services are traded and tourism flourishes.
This would offer young Muslims a financial stake in the globalized world and therefore, give them a reason to live, not to die.
But the fact that this brain dead administration wouldn't (and didn't) come up with such an enticing, creative and enlightened approach to terrorism tells us all we need to know about it. However, there would have been a problem anyway: Bush can't speak intelligently on anything, let alone complicated issues such as the Mideast, terrorism and globalization.
This would have required a sharp, perceptive, conscientious, tolerant and empathetic President, who understood the complexities of Mideast (and its history), and was willing to listen to the passions, grievances and concerns Muslims have and learn from them.
But Bush doesn't care, doesn't have a clue about the Mideast, terrorism or globalization, and can't string two coherent sentences together. So it's not in him to do something like that. It's not even close.
(A case could be made that it's in the Republican Party's political interest to ensure that we're constantly threatened and constantly sending troops overseas to "kill 'em all" because it gives them the opportunity to blast those sappy "liberal pacifists," especially around election time [they did that for 30 years during the Cold War. The tactics are the same, just the enemies are different.]. And that's really all they care about. So the GOP might not necessarily want to put an end to terrorism, or at least not the threat of terrorism).
Sure, town hall meetings wouldn't have won this war by themselves; but neither will bombs and bullets by themselves. So here's what the rest of the post 9/11 plan could have looked like if we had a real President:
1. Get Afghanistan right:
Eradicate the Taliban and al-Qaeda, secure the country, and cut a trade deal as soon as possible so it would give Afghan farmers a reason to grow a legitimate crop and not opium. This would have enabled them to send their children to real schools.
If it takes a few cents out of the pockets American farmers, so be it. Consider it an extremely cheap way to make us safer over the long run.
That's what Presidents are supposed to do.
What Bush did instead: pulled out troops and resources in 2002 and sent them to Kuwait to prepare for an invasion of Iraq. And that has allowed Afghanistan to become another one of his disasters.
The country is growing so much opium - which funds al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the warlords and the rampant corruption - that it's become the "Colombia" of heroin.
And since Afghans can't afford to send their children to real schools, they're sending them to the free madrassa up the road where the only subject is "Radical Islamic Extremism 101" and America is always the enemy. This indoctrination is known as Wahhabism (English translation: a terrorist training school for children).
2. Don't invade Iraq:
That's what Presidents of the United States are not supposed to do.
What Bush did instead: lied the country into an unnecessary war that's turned into a quagmire we can't get out of. The current situation is so desperate, our only goal right now is to avert a regional disaster of catastrophic proportion.
3. Assemble a better 9/11 Commission:
The 9/11 Commission was made up of reputable people. However, (conveniently for Bush) it wasn't the best group.Former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart should have been named immediately as co-charimen since they literally wrote the book on the terrorist threats we faced in 1999 and 2000 (Bill Clinton handed it to Bush who handed it to Cheney and both of them ignored it).
The Commission would have had over a year to complete their investigation and issued a final report by the spring of 2003. So by 2005 at the latest, the initial steps to protect the homeland - overhauling our intelligence and surveillance networks, revising the procedures of gathering, interpreting, filtering and "stove piping" of intelligence, and securing our ports, chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, and oil refineries and reserves - would have been completed.
That's what Presidents of the United States are supposed to do.
What Bush did instead: opposed a special 9/11 Commission altogether, later stonewalled the Commission, wouldn't testify before the Commission unless Dick Cheney appeared with him (incredibly, neither was put under oath and no formal transcript of their testimony was taken), and made sure he strung everything out so their final report (conveniently) wouldn't be issued until the middle of his 2004 Presidential campaign.
By this time Karl Rove had made sure any blame the Democrats or the "liberal" media placed on Bush would look like a "partisan attack" or the "liberal" media was unfairly "bashing Bush in an election year."
Meanwhile, Bush still hasn't adequately secured the homeland.
4. A new Geneva Convention:
It didn't take a genius to figure out that since the "war on terror" wouldn't have an official end, prisoners would never be exchanged. And since this war was like no other before it, new guidelines and new P.O.W. "rights" would be required for the terrorists we captured in the months and years ahead. So a new "Geneva Convention" was needed.
Therefore, Bush should have invited to Washington current and former State and Defense Department officials and their European counterparts, FBI and CIA directors, UN diplomats, and officials from the Red Cross and human rights organizations - everyone would have a seat at this table - so they can write a new one.
That's what Presidents of the United States are supposed to do.
This would have averted the scandals, embarrassment and most important, the pictures of torture coming out of Abu Ghraib (if Bush was smart enough to do this, but still foolish enough to invade Iraq), Guantanamo Bay and Bagram Air Base, which have only inflamed the Arab world and done wonders for terrorist recruitment and fund raising.
What Bush did instead: ignored the Geneva Convention, the Constitution, the "values" and "morals" America supposedly has and the "pro-life values" he has by not only illegally detaining, torturing and killing "enemy combatants," but setting up secret CIA prisons to do so (Congress passed legislation that would have outlawed such treatment, but Bush added a "signing statement" allowing him to ignore that too).
He gave the world and "We the People" the finger, which is the sort of behavior you'd expect from a bully.
5. Take advantage of opportunities:
In 2002 and 2003, Tehran and Damascus wanted to open negotiations with Washington. This would have normalized diplomatic relations, relaxed tensions between us, brought the globalized world to the Arab world and reigned in Hezbollah and maybe even Hamas.
It also would have given us an enormous amount of extra help against al-Qaeda.
That's what Presidents of the United States are supposed to do.
What Bush did instead: flipped them the bird as well and threw the deals back into their faces.
As a result, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas couldn't be any more united against their "axis of evil" - the United States, Great Britain, Israel and the globalized world.
6. Ask for sacrifice:
During WWII my parents and grandparents rationed everything from food to fuel. Here we are fighting three wars and where's the call to sacrifice?
That's what Presidents of the United States are supposed to do.
What Bush did instead: cut taxes for the wealthy and told the country to "go shopping."
So while we're asking young men and women to risk life and limb overseas, pompous Republicans are throwing lavish parties with their selfish tax cuts. That's obscene.
If Republicans won't raises taxes - and in fact cut them - after being attacked, while fighting three endless wars, after losing New Orleans to a hurricane, and have an exploding budget deficit and debt, I'd hate to think of the circumstances under which Republicans would raise taxes.
7. Cut our addiction to Mideast oil:
This is a no-brainer.
Purchasing less oil from the Mideast would lessen the strategic importance the region has become. Consequently, we wouldn't have to station as many troops there; nor would we have to go to war for oil - directly or indirectly - ever again.
But there's more to it then that.
Oil funds terrorism. In fact, Bush's wonderful friends, the Saudis, fund al-Qaeda and the madrassass.
So if we buy less oil from these double-crossing nations and ruthless regimes, it means less money for terrorists, less money for terrorist states (Iran) and less money for terrorist organizations (al-Qaeda and Hezbollah).
Also, by lowering the demand for oil, it would result in a corresponding cut in the price of every barrel. And then the authoritarian oil rich nations - Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria and Sudan included - would eventually see a reduction in their standard of living (regardless of where it currently stands). Then we'd have them over a barrel for a change.
To make up for the loss of revenue, these countries would be forced to request "membership" in the multi-trillion dollar globalized world. But we wouldn't let them in until they initiated democratic reforms and respected civil liberties (at least minimally, as a starting point), stood up to terrorism, recognized Israel and supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
With oil at record highs, Arab nations don't have much of a reason to change; get the price of a barrel down to $20 and they'll be forced to. And there's precedence for it.
A dwindling of oil reserves in Bahrain lead to a trade deal signed by Bush himself. They became the third Arab nation to enter into an agreement with the United States after Jordan and Morocco, who aren't exactly drowning in oil.
This comes after Bahrain held elections in 2002 (their first since 1973) and the first ever that allowed women to participate.
This goes to show that real democracy and the opening of markets can only come from within, not at the point of a gun.
To paraphrase Tom Friedman of the New York Times, this would be "a win-win-win-win-win situation" (which is why Republicans will never "get it" - it makes too much sense!).
So in the fall of 2001, Bush could have called for a cut in the amount of oil we import from the Mideast, short and long term. And there were a number of steps he could have taken to reach that goal.
First, he could have called for conservation (insert Bush/Cheney sarcastic joke here).
Second, he could have called for phasing in increases to automobile, SUV and truck fuel efficiency standards (insert laughter here) so by 2004 or 2005 all vehicles coming off the assembly line would be getting better mileage then they did in 2001; and the 2006 and 2007 models, even better.
Third, he could have called for a massive R&D "Manhattan-like Project" on alternative fuels and renewable energies to substantially cut the amount of all energy and natural resources the nation consumes: oil, electricity, natural gas, coal and water.
When you're done laughing, get up off the floor and continue reading.
Since this would have been too important to allow politics to get the in way, Bush could have called for an honest debate on the issue - which does comes down to the nation's national security - because the country's time, money, resources, subsidies, tax incentives and tax credits could not be squandered (i.e. assuming it's not a practical and worthwhile investment and solution - which it isn't - the country has to stop the knee-jerk pandering to the corn/ethanol farmers/industry/lobby).
And to pay for all this, he could have called for an increase in the gas tax (part of which could have been used to improve and lower the cost of public transportation). Hey, we're at war, that's what sacrifice is all about.
This is what Presidents of the United States are supposed to do!
Imagine what it would mean to individuals, families, businesses and the country's productivity if we dramatically reduced future transportation and utility costs.
What Bush did instead: repealed oil and gas industry regulations and gave them $6 billion dollars worth of tax cuts and subsidies (the nuclear industry got $12 billion, the coal industry $9 billion, and electric, just over $1 billion).
They went on to record record profits.
For the past 20 years, Republicans have said that their goal is to cut funds to evil "big government" programs like Social Security so they'll wither away and die. They call it "starving the beast."
But by all means, let's keep buying that oil and keep "feeding the terrorist beast."
8. Become the next John F. Kennedy:
Assuming he could speak like an adult, Bush could have made regular visits - continuing to this day - to middle schools, high schools and colleges, influencing and encouraging the teenagers and young adults to consider a career in the war against terrorism themselves.
And it doesn't have to be in the armed forces. It could be as an economist, biologist, sociologist, cartographer, linguist, historian or computer technician for the Defense Department, State Department, FBI, CIA or NSA. Or it could be as a meat inspector for the Department of Agriculture or a customs agent or border control guard for the INS. Or it could be part of our last line of defense: a policeman, fireman or EMT.
It could also be as an engineer that revolutionizes the combustion engine.
If we're going to wipe out terrorism completely - if that's possible - we're going to need a lot of smart and dedicated people over the next generation. And who would make a better recruiter than the President?
"Ask not how your country will keep you safe, ask how you can keep your country safer!"
That's what Presidents of the United States are supposed to do!
What Bush did instead: became the best recruiter terrorists could ask for and did a heck of a job making sure his brainwashed base was kept riled up and angry at those evil "liberals" the last five years.
9. Be a leader:
This plan could only have been implemented with strong Presidential leadership. And in the fall of 2001 Bush had the perfect opportunity to lead because the country desperately wanted to be led. Whatever he asked for would have been done; no questions asked.
That's exactly what Presidents of the United States are supposed to do!
What Bush did instead: lie, spin, manipulate, intimidate and play nasty partisan politics. Other then that, all he's shown is that he couldn't lead a pack of Girl Scouts out of the mall.
Conclusion:
September 11, 2001 will go down as one of the worst days in American history.
But a real President, a creative President, an imaginative President, a smart President, a sagacious President, a practical President, a caring President, a President who came into office having read a newspaper - a President who could lead, damn it! - would have fought this war by eradicating al-Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan and stabilized the country so it wouldn't become a haven for terrorists ever again, would not have invaded Iraq, secured the homeland within three or four years, improved diplomatic relations with the Arab world, brought trade, investment and tourism to the Mideast, prevented young Muslims from becoming terrorists, and secured peace between Israel and the Palestinians - while going "green" in the process.
And that's how you defeat al-Qaeda and terrorism.
So you see, Republicans? There were ways to fight this war intelligently, practically, productively and effectively. You just have to be able to think first.
Note: It's only fair to point out that a Democratic president wouldn't have implemented this plan either; at least not in total. And since the Democrats never came across a trade deal they liked, they probably wouldn't have fought this war with the key globalization component. In fact, just two months ago, Democrats secured enough votes in the House to strike down a trade deal with Oman.
That said, I'd like to think a Democratic president would have done everything possible to prevent young Muslims from becoming in terrorists in the first place, despite labor's firm grip on the party. Because that's what Presidents of the United States are supposed to do.
But there's no question that a Democratic President's response to 9/11, al-Qaeda and terrorism would have been a lot more practical and thoughtful then George Bush's (then again, so would a door knobs). And no one else would have invaded Iraq - not Al Gore, not John Kerry and not John McCain.
It's not debatable: no one would have fought this war as ignorantly, as incompetently, as arrogantly, as recklessly, as hypocritically and as immaturely as George Bush has.
And he should be impeached and jailed for his bellicose actions and inept lack of action.
October 2007 insert: Bin Laden has beaten Bush
+/- show/hide this post
