| Bush’s
“War on Terror”: No Lack of Imagination
by Ivan Eland
According to one of the main findings of the 9/11 Commission, the U.S.
government’s failure to anticipate the grave threat from al Qaeda prior
to the September 11 attacks was a failure of imagination. Since those
attacks, however, the Bush administration’s broad “war on terror”
has exhibited nothing but imagination.
To begin with, President Bush has the chimerical and dangerously naïve
notion that al Qaeda attacks America because of its freedoms—that is,
the United States is attacked for what it is and not what it does. All
evidence is to the contrary. Both Western and Islamic authorities on al
Qaeda tell us that the group attacks the United States because of its
foreign policy toward the Moslem world. Osama bin Laden believes the U.S.
military’s presence and actions in Islamic lands, as well as its support
for corrupt governments there, are tantamount to a modern day
“crusade.” President Bush’s disastrous use of the c-word to describe
U.S. policy merely confirmed the obvious to many Moslems around the world.
Repeated polls of the Islamic world demonstrate that intense anti-U.S.
hatred is generated by U.S. foreign policy, not by U.S. culture,
technology, or political and economic freedoms. In fact, those latter
characteristics of U.S. society are often admired in Moslem lands.
The Bush administration’s immediate response to 9/11—invading
Afghanistan, removing the Taliban regime, and remaining to remake the
country—has been widely praised in the West. But on two separate
occasions, instead of risking American casualties by using U.S. Special
Forces, the Bush administration imagined that the unreliable Northern
Alliance could round up al Qaeda fighters trying to escape from
Afghanistan to Pakistan. Osama bin Laden and other dangerous high-level
members of al Qaeda escaped and have not been rounded up in almost three
years. Moreover, instead of hunting down the terrorists, leaving, and
threatening to return if Afghanistan again becomes a haven for al Qaeda,
the continuing American nation-building program in that country—as well
as U.S. support for an unrepresentative Afghan puppet government—have
fueled a resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Both are conducting a
defensive jihad against what they believe is an infidel occupation of
Islamic territory.
Instead of fully neutralizing those who attacked us on 9/11, the Bush
administration—like Don Quixote—imagined other threats that were
nonexistent. The administration took advantage of the September 11 attacks
to go after many “terrorist” groups around the globe that do not
currently focus their attacks on the United States (for example, Arab
groups that attack Israel) and countries that supported them (for example,
Iraq). In fact, the administration fantasized that Iraq’s involvement in
sponsoring terrorism was much greater than it was. Iran and Syria are much
greater state sponsors of terrorism than was Iraq. The few groups that
Iraq sponsored focused their attacks on Iran and Israel.
The administration also imagined that Iraq had large stockpiles of
biological and chemical weapons and an advanced nuclear program. More
important, even if all of those weapons had actually existed, the
administration still exaggerated the threat to the United States. In the
very worst case, if Iraq had had a few working nuclear weapons, the United
States could have deterred an Iraqi nuclear attack with the multitude of
warheads in the most powerful nuclear arsenal on the globe—just like it
did when the radical communist Mao Tse-Tung obtained nuclear weapons in
the 1960s. The threat of Iraq giving nuclear, chemical or biological
weapons to anti-U.S. terrorists was also grossly inflated by the Bush
administration’s concocting of an operational link between Saddam
Hussein and al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam Hussein would have been unlikely to
give such weapons—which are expensive to research and produce—to any
radical terrorist groups that could have brought him needless trouble with
a superpower.
Now the administration’s post-9/11 “war on terror” is bogged down
in the Iraqi quagmire, predictably siphoning official effort, resources,
and attention away from the critical fight against al Qaeda. But that’s
not the worst implication of this Quixotic and unnecessary invasion of a
sovereign nation. Invading a second Islamic country has energized Osama
bin Laden’s zealous global defensive jihad to throw the infidel
crusaders off Moslem soil. Bin Laden has been able to recruit many
locally-absorbed Islamic radicals to refocus their attacks on the United
States—for example, Islamic fighters in Algeria. The frequency of al
Qaeda attacks since September 11 has been greater than before that fateful
day. Unfortunately, the overflowing anti-U.S. hatred in the Islamic
world—which has spawned those attacks and has been generated by the Bush
administration’s fanciful foreign policy—is not imaginary.
Ivan
Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center
on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA.,
and author of the book, Putting
“Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy. For further articles
and studies, see OnPower.org |