The high point of George W. Bush's presidency came at America's low point of George W. Bush's presidency. Bush's moment in the rubble of the World Trade Center, comfortably surrounded by firemen and rescue workers, ranks above anything in recent presidential history in the dramatic category. That magical moment probably explains much of his stubborn support. All the gray, cloudy times simply get outshined by that glorious, uplifting one. In direct, simple, impromptu language, Bush showed that he got it: "I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people--and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" Five years later, Bush's words show that he doesn't get it. In his 9/11 anniversary speech, Bush mentioned Iraq and Iraqis more than a dozen times but found room for only two mentions of Afghanistan and no mentions of the nations the 9/11 terrorists hailed from. On the fifth anniversary of Pearl Harbor, what would have happened had an American president obsessed over, say, the Mongolians, only to mention Japan a couple of times?

Here Here!

We need to get back to basics and define who our enemies are and which ones the most dangerous. Once we have done this, we can define strategies on how to deal with them. In other words, it no longer seems to be in America's national interest to have such a large a large number of resources commited to Iraq.

Amen to that.

If Bush EVER “got it”, he lost it. I suppose, because of other factors at the time, picking Iraq to target for our war against terrorism (whatever that means these days?) was as good a pick as any. But, to maintain that our foray into Iraq is still relevant, especially as there are any number of other countries that support terrorism abroad and are probably more of a threat to us than Iraq, just sounds dumb. And dumb is something that GW seems to demonstrate regularly these days.

Bush's speeches always leave me speechless.

On December 7, 1946 Truman should have given a speech that barely mentioned Japan but did mention the emerging totalitarian menace, the Soviet Union. Then the president took too much time to recognize the dynamic nature of the threat we faced and to institute a response. The results were terrible for many people and almost disastrous for the whole world. George Bush has been quicker and better, but the threat is more dangerous.

What did he, or was he supposed to, get? I think he was just reflecting the blood lust and anger that everyone had at the time, myself included. But at the end of the day, this is a social problem, rather than a problem that can be solved country-to-country. That's not totally true, of course, as certain countries (ya'll know who you are) have a higher percentage of crazy freakin' arabs than others.

But we can't bomb a country that doesn't attack us, so we'll have to use a sophisticated foreign policy approach to convince them that it's in their interest to deal with the problem. This is not an approach that plays well on the front page of the paper. We want to attack someone, kill people, get revenge, and generally fix the problem with a more direct approach than is possible in this scenario.

When I say this is a social problem, though, I don't mean that terrorists want to kill us becuase of poverty, or some other BS reason that we've likely heard over the past 5 years. The problem of the export of our nihilist, empty, soul-consuming society to their countries is not something that anyone seems willing to tackle. But at the end of the day, that's "why they hate us", and why there is no beach to land on, or hill to take in this particular war.

Are you serious???

Al Quadea more dangerous that the Soviet Union??

WHAT are you smoking man??

The threat to the West in general and the U.S. in particular is "radical" Islam, which is to say, Islam simpliciter. That same threat manifests itself as Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, etc. And though these subgroups are distinguished by nationality, ethnicity and denomination, they are united in their purpose (e.g., Iran, Persian Shi'ite, is allied with Syria and Hezbollah, Arab Sunni).

It is a ubiquitous threat, and so a single nation cannot combat it on every front. The U.S. has chosen two, one of which is Iraq. Whether this was the best front to engage is a open question. It is, nonetheless, a front in the war against Islam.

HeHe, you are forgetting the existential threat that radical Islam poses to Western Civilization. Or some schlock like that.

Bit off track, but it drives me crazy....Phillips Academy, Yale, Harvard 'B' school, a fairly successful career in politics and this guy still talks like he has a cow pie in his mouth. Or worse: in his skull. He either doesn't care or doesn’t have the ability to communicate intelligently.

Certainly not the masterdebator Ted Kennedy is, that’s for sure!

Existential??

I would say that Soviet nukes theatened the EXISTENCE of America more than a few highjacked planes.

I remember that moment. Good stuff, but does it really outshine the rest of the bad stuff?

"I would say that Soviet nukes threatened the EXISTENCE of America more than a few highjacked planes."

How about highjacked planes flown into sky-scrapers in Manhattan? I'm no Cold-War expert, but I'm fairly certain that no American lives were lost at the hands of Soviet nukes.

And what about the threat of Islamic nukes? Iraq was seeking them (those famous 13 words from Bush's State of the Union are likely correct; see Christopher Hitchens well-written article at http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/), Iran is seeking them, and Pakistan has them.

Excellent and well put post, Dan.

Along your lines, as well as the absolutely ludicrous notion hailed by some that Islamic terrorism somehow poses as great a threat as the Soviet Union did, I just posted (literally, like 10 minutes ago) my article, "The Path To 9/11 or The Path Since 9/11: Which is Worse?"

You may find it here:
http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=383

What's ludicrous is your suggestion that lightning poses a greater threat to Americans than Islamic terrorism. Your narrow vision of the conflict -- the U.S. versus 1000 guys spread around the world wearing "Al Qaeda" name tags -- is equally ludicrous.

You were more likely to die of ANYTHING than you were likely to die of Japanese or German bombs if you lived in the United States during World War II.

So what, exactly, is your point?

Who said anything about lightning?

Ben-T, if you are addressing me, my point is made clear if you follow the link. But shorthand: the supposed threat terrorism poses is way overblown, and certainly is not nearly as great as that once posed by the USSR, neo-con rhetoric and hyperbole aside. Moreover, the greater threat to our civilization than terrorism itself, I argue, is posed by our disproportionate response to terrorism.

I apologize. I didn't remember your ludicrous statement correctly. Instead of lightning, you claimed that auto accidents are a greater threat to Americans than Islamic terrorists. That's slightly less ludicrous.

In 2001 42,196 Americans died in auto accidents. In the 9/11 attacks 3023 Americans died. Were this the only measure, you'd have a point. What you fail to realize is that the effects of terrorist attacks are not measured in loss of life. There are economic and psychological consequences as well, and these dwarf those of auto accidents.

For example, when the NYSE exchange opened after 9/11 the Dow fell 685 points. In the month after 9/11, an estimated 105 billion dollars were lost in New York City alone. The national and global economic losses were significantly greater.

Finally, in the U.S. fatalities from auto accidents average between 42 and 43 thousand a year. A single nuclear attack in a major metropolitan area would easily surpass the number of such fatalities for the last half-century (not to mention the economic and psychological effects).

685 points, month after in New York 105 billion.

"What you fail to realize is that the effects of terrorist attacks are not measured in loss of life ALONE."

Ralph,

That wasn't my point at all. I apologize for not being more clear.

The point was that on the worst terrorist attack in our history - and likely the worst they could ever hope since we are wiser to the threat - "only" 2,900-plus people died - less than a week's worth of vehicle-related deaths. This is not to undermine how horrific the crime was, but is to emphasize the need for proportion in our evaluation of the threat terrorism posses to us, which the context of that statement should make clear. In other words, you are majoring on a minor.

The major is this: The Nazis and the Soviets both threatened - and with terrifying speed took over - the political control of their enemies, and left unchecked possessed the ability to conquer more lands, even ours. They had the military ability to inflict immense damage to the whole of our country, esp. the Soviets. The radical Islamic terrorists possess no such ability to conquer their foes, or to inflict damage beyond the local. To equate the threat of terrorism to those conflicts through use of such hyperbolic language, as the neo-cons are prone to do, is irresponsible, and introduces greater constitutional threats to our country, as I explain in my article.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss with you and others my larger points and context over at my blog, if you'd like. Again, I'm sorry my minor supporting point apparently distracted from the larger issues I was attempting to address.

Sincerely,
--Eric

I donno Ralph, if I could chose to have those 42,196 Americans back alive or to have the economic and psychological effects of 9-11 on the nation erased, I'd chose the former. It is a "dwarf"-ing comparison, but you've got it backwards.

DocMcG, glaring disana1ogy: on December 7, 1946 the people that bombed us five years prior had been defeated. And, furthermore, to say that the threat from Saddam's Iraq was greater than that from Stalin's Russia is not merely foolish, but unjust to the millions Stalin kept from living or kept from living well.

Skeptic,

Let me ask the question this way: Which is a greater threat to the regime, the accidental loss of 42,000 people, or the murder of 3,000 people plus the economic and psychological deficits? I'd say the latter.

Eric,

"likely the worst they could ever hope since we are wiser to the threat"

This strikes me as naive. Presumably the Britts were wiser to the threat, for example. It didn't prevent Muslim terrorists from bombing London's trains. What if, instead of conventional explosives, such attacks were carried out with nuclear weapons? Do you mean to say that is an unlikely scenario? On how long of a timeline?

Many of the states that sponsor their terror have inexhaustible wealth. Many other states -- Korea, Russia -- all too willing to trade in nuclear technology. What is the probability that Iran, for instance, will acquire nuclear weapons and not proliferate them to our enemies? Risk cannot be measured in probability alone. It must be measured in the magnitude of the effect.

Ralph-- you didn't say anything about which was more "threatening"; you compared the effects of auto accidents with the effects of terrorism, so you have not rephrased the question, but offered a different question altogether. Moreover, what is this slippage into a "threat to the regime." Is that suppose to trump everything else? The point of the regime is the good lives of the citizens, and so necessarily some threats to the regime are worth undergoing for the sake of the citizens' lives.

The 42K that die accidentally are in no way a threat to the regime, but a random death threat to president is. Which one would I rather erase? Still, no contest. I don't think 9-11 was such a threat to our "regime's" life and good life that I would pay 42K Americans (or Iraqis) to erase it.

Ralph,

From my article, because you apparently aren't hearing all sides of what I am saying:

"I believe that the War on Terror is worth fighting."

"I also believe that this is a war that by its nature must be mostly preventative (read: primarily a law-enforcement and counter-intelligence issue, rather than a military one) – with some tightly targeted and offensive military action occasionally necessary.”

"This still holds true even if some terrorists or terrorist nation like Iran gain possession of a nuclear weapon. Again, I state that this is a terribly important issue. But the worse they could do with a weapon is wipe out a portion of one of our cities. That would be a terrible tragedy and crime, and would warrant our full wrath on those responsible. But, again, there is no real threat, even here, of our government and nation being overthrown or annihilated."

"Thus, one can hold that terrorism is a very real threat that must be fought, while at the same time say that the threat has been way overblown and is thus being used to justify all sorts unnecessary violations of our civil liberties and other unconstitutional actions by this government. I, for one, certainly believe this is the case."

Further, you are ignoring the very real possibility that rather than eliminating the terrorist menace, we are proliferating and exacerbating it through our policies. After all, we are tramping all over their holy ground. So I also wrote things in my article like this:

"In particular, I have always believed that the Iraq War, which the Bush Administration insists is central to the War on Terror… is counterproductive to both our goal in the War on Terror and the (related) goal of a stable Middle East..."

"The Bush Administration and its neo-con backers love to say that it’s better to fight the terrorists over there – to bring the fight to them – rather than to fight them on our own soil. My retort is this: the terrorists now find that it is much more convenient to kill the American soldiers now occupying their own land, than to try to conduct intricate operations over here. And our presence over there has become the best recruiting tool yet for Al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations."

So, Ralph, your comments against my position have not been addressing what I am saying at all. They simply do not apply.

The US invasion of Iraq was not a war against Islam -- or even radical Islam -- because Saddam's Ba'ath Party was secular and nationalistic. Under Saddam Wahabism was prohibited, the Shia were marginalized due to their possible sympathies with Iran, and Sharia law had no legal codification.

It's strange that people so quickly forget that Iraq was actually the very first ally in the War on Terror if we date the start of radical Islam with the rise of the Ayatollah in Iran. Iraq spent eight longs years killing Persians with the support of the United States government.

Of course one can argue that our invasion of Iraq stirred the radical Islamic hornet's nest by fomenting Shia zealotry and allowing Iran to possibly extend its sphere of influence to Iraq.

The consequences of our war are obvious: the Iraqi invasion triggered a Sunni insurgency and our democratization of Iraq triggered a civil war. God knows what will happen next.

Good points Eric.

What I don't get is why we don't just start over and break the country into thirds: Shia, Sunni, and Kurd.

The Kurds pretty much run themselves anyway, and the Shia millitas control the south.

Give each side a country of their own.

We'll make Turkey mad if we do it, but screw it. Its gotta be better than this disaster.

I think why that proposal is controversial, HeHe, is that the oil is not evenly distributed under the lands inhabited by the three groups. Perhaps it would work better than the artificially constructed entity known as Iraq, though.

Besides the problem that Dan raises, there is the very real possibility that Turkey might choose to invade Kurdistan if it was recognized as a sovereign nation. It seems no matter which direction we take the situation will continue to worsen.

Turkey has regularly invaded Kurdistan (northern Iraq) for years now. They barely maintain control of the large Kurdish population in southern Turkey as is, and a real war would very likely break out if the Kurds get anything resembling formal autonomy.

The only solution for governing Iraq that had ever seemed reasonable to me (other than not invading, ending the unjust embargo, and letting Saddam remain in power) was a strictly federalist approach w/ nationalized oil but equalized representation based on the major ethnic divisions. Also a Parliament w/ representation that has some high threshold that a party must receive in votes in order to get representation to try and exclude extremist parties.

That isn't going to happen now though, it is just a total disaster and I see no good coming of the Iraq invasion.