The Soap Box

On October 6th, the President appeared before the National Endowment for Democracy (the friendliest audience he could find using his now-notorious search methods) and made his best case for the War on Terror, since somebody had to finally respond to the critics. In the days leading up to it, the White House hyped President Bush’s speech as if it were the State of the Union. It will be a major policy speech with detail and explication the likes of which have heretofore never been heard, they said. The media was skeptical since this wasn’t the first rehashed, same-old same-old speech that Scott McClellan had dressed up in those fancy clothes. Turned out, the media was mostly right.

The speech wasn’t entirely rehash, though, and the press did report on it for a few days. One big tidbit they missed entirely was the Jews. President Bush continued his courting of American Jews with this speech - some of his most ardent supporters on the war - but he really went the extra mile, where no President before him had dared to tread. All in one forty-minute speech, he explicitly referenced the anti-Semitism which is a staple of much of the Arab media, he suggested that perhaps Israel would be justified in retaliating against Iran or Syria for terrorism within its borders, and he broadcast that dirty little secret that the Paletinian/Israeli conflict is most often used as cover for geopolitical gain by parties who either are unable to or are not interested in actually resolving the conflict (and who more often than not do not have the Palestinian people’s interests in mind), à la Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent theatrics.

And there was one pretty major gaff which the media missed: The President actually used the term, “the Jews,” as in “Syria and Iran . . . use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews.” His intentions were good, surely. But a goy using our term? Regardless of his ethinicity, the term is actually an objectifying one anyway, historically used primarily by Arab and Christian anti-Semitic propagandizers to refer to the Other, not used by Jews themselves (Jews tend to say things like “Jews” or “Jewish people” or “the chosen people” or “us,” not the Jews). It was like a Klansman discussing the evils of “the N word.” Not nearly as bad as Nixon’s virulent and persisting anti-Semitism, or Jesse’s politically incorrect moment of weakness, but condemnable nonetheless.

The one part of the speech which was substantive and clearly new was the President’s reference to ten terrorist plots and five “casings” foiled by the U.S. and its allies since September 11th. This received the majority of the media attention. Analyses of these claims in the press almost unanimously concluded there’s nothing to analyze since it’s all classified information, and that was the end of the coverage of “the biggest speech of the year.” But there was more in Bush’s speech that was new; in fact, taken as a whole, the speech provided more insight into the true nature of the War on Terror than we’ve ever gotten before, more for the lack of what was said than what was actually there (who knew? McLellan was right!). And surely that is worth reporting on.

This speech represented the President’s rosiest snapshot of how the War on Terror is going, his best pitch for why his approval ratings should begin the steep climb back upwards to “respectable.” The meat of the speech was something akin to a report card for his prosecution of the War. Like everything that comes out of this White House, it was heavier on spin than on facts (and what facts there were are, of course, classified), so it was never taken seriously. But Bush’s case deserves a second - and honest - look because the yardsticks are (mostly) accurate; it just requires an objective grader. So let’s give it a try.

The President’s report card has five separate categories. Rather than being graded just on the half-truths the President cited during his speech, marks will be given based also on all that was left out.

* * *

Stops Attacks Before They Happen
President cites ten plots and five casings averted, but refuses to give details about more than a handful of them, saying they are “secret.” Has managed to prevent any attacks against himself - though not against his friends such as England, Spain, Israel, Russia, and Indonesia - primarily by picking fights at other students’ desks and taking blows over there. Claims to have incapacitated virtually all of the leadership of his enemy. But even without leadership, there seems to be a large group of loosely affiliated yet independently-acting terrorists who disguise themselves well attacking President and his friends. In all, the number and severity of attacks seem to be continuing with more or less as much frequency and success as in years before Sept. 11, 2001 (recall World Trade Center bombing 1993, Khobar Towers bombing 1996, US African Embassy bombings 1998, USS Cole bombing 2000).
Grade: C

Denies Weapons of Mass Destruction to Outlaw Regimes
President insists that weapons of mass destruction (or WMD) must be kept only from outlaw regimes mainly because President wants to be able to keep and further develop his own. However, President is inconsistent when defining precisely what an “outlaw regime” is. Has visciously attacked Class Bully who President claims possessed WMD, only to change the subject when proven wrong. Protects his friends who possess WMD such as Pakistan, India, and Israel, and virtually ignores troublemakers other than Bully - such as Iran and North Korea - as they quite openly obtain WMD. President cannot take credit for preventing anyone in the class from obtaining WMD who was looking for them, erroneously takes credit for convincing Lybia to give up WMD programs despite the fact that Lybia had been begging for handouts in exchange for doing so for years, and has even hurt the cause of non-proliferation by flaunting his own WMD with fancy made-up terms such as “National Missile Defense” and “Bunker Busters.”
Grade: F

Denies Terrorists the Support of Outlaw Regimes
President initially removed from Afghanistan’s desk troublemakers who were harboring terrorists there, and has made efforts to reform the desk to prevent a resurgence, with mixed results. Since that time, has focused almost exclusively on Class Bully whom he attacked, also falsely claiming Bully was harboring terrists. As a result, terrorists have found harbor and a cause to fight for at Bully’s former desk. Meanwhile, President has turned a blind eye to the notorious connection his friends Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have to terrorists. Claims to have broken up the WMD technology distribution ring being run out of Pakistan’s desk; but it is likely such a sophisticated network had to have been know about - and covered up by - Pakistan in the first place, and even after it has been exposed the ringleader remains a national hero there. Furthermore, President has done little more than make idle threats towards classmates Iran and Syria who have harbored and supported the terrorist enemies of his friend, Israel.
Grade: D

Denies Terrorists Control of Any Nation
Having removed Bully, President has been preoccupied with fighting terrorists for control of Bully’s desk, and has been inattentive to the rest of the classroom. Results at Bully’s desk are still uncertain at best. Is also still struggling with reforming Afghanistan’s desk. Again, has done little about Iran or Syria who are virtually terrorists themselves, to the detriment of Israel and Lebanon. It’s not clear that the terrorists are attempting to gain control of any nation anyway, but just attempting to prevent anyone in the classroom from completing their work of modernizing and unifying the classroom in peace.
Grade: D

Denies Terrorists Future Recruits by Spreading Democracy
Claims to have spread democracy to classmates Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. Egypt recently made perfunctory efforts at appearing as though it has embraced democracy while ensuring it doesn’t actually cede any control whatsoever. Saudi Arabia embraces (some limited form of) democracy only with respect to inconsequential local decisions, and remains under the tight grip of Shari’a law. Lebanon made noises suggesting that it wished to be free from neighbor Syria’s cluthces, but a week later voted with its feet and made clear that it wasn’t interested. There is some doubt as to whether it is possible to spread democracy to anyone without a domestic democratic movement anyway. President’s efforts so far seem only to have produced democratic imperialism, further spurring terrorist recruiting efforts.
Grade: F

* * *

President Bush’s failure in prosecuting the War on Terror should be enough to report on every time he makes a rosy claim about America’s progress and resolve. But the even bigger story not being reported is that the War on Terror isn’t really a war at all; it’s just been packaged that way for domestic political consumption. By the President’s own analysis, only one facet of the War - denying control of any country - actually involves military action. And even then, it was begun and finished in Afghanistan. The majority of the War is prosecuted through law enforcement, intelligence and counter-intelligence, and diplomacy. But instead of giving an honest explanation of the threat and how we’re dealing with it, Bush made the decision four years ago to become a wartime President, for the political benefits. He is now fully wed to selling his presidency as one big war, and so is stuck with his wartime rhetoric whether it fits or not.

Most often, it doesn’t (not that the American public seems to have noticed). If the President stuck to his rhetoric to treat regimes that support terrorists the same as the terrorists themselves, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran a long time ago. But instead we deal with these countries through the proper diplomatic channels (when Bush bothers to deal with them at all), as well we should. The War on Terror is in truth one big rhetorical flourish, a great shadowboxing match. If we are to believe - as this President would like us to - that the rhetoric of war actually is war, then Iran would have been at war with us since the revolution, Iraq continuously since the First Gulf War, and Al Qaeda since bin Laden moved to Afghanistan. Thankfully, we managed not to lose a single soldier in those wars, even though Khomeini, Hussein, and bin Laden proved to be great shadowboxers.

And of course, Bush cannot convince us we are at war without telling us who we are at war with. Not only must the President blow hot air about how we are making our country safer, but to sell it he must lend credence to the enemy’s rhetoric, to make them formidible enough to be in a full-fledged war with. The October 6th speech was the pinnacle of legitimizing “the terrorists.” In truth, they are boys playing soldier in the woods. In the modern age, anyone can kill thousands of innocent people and bring buildings tumbling down; but Al Qaeda is nothing compared to the military, police, and diplomatic force of the United States and its allies. They have no bombers or missiles, no ambassadors or negotiating skills, and not even any refuge . . . except in those countries where - despite the President’s rhetoric - we allow regimes to support terrorists because those regimes would otherwise be toppled by Islamist elements in their societies. But on October 6th, referring to the enemy with phrases like “chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf” and outlining their sophisticated strategy as if it were a Fortune 500 business plan, the President of the United States officially elevated a loose international affiliation of the murderous, fanatical enemies of humanity and Islam to a well-organized, ideologically coherent operation which is the military equal of the world’s only superpower.

Although it was entirely unconnected at the time it began, the War in Iraq is the only facet of the War on Terror that truly is a war and now involves terrorists. It has come to pass that we are fighting the terrorists over there so that we do not have to fight them over here, because Iraqi lives are worth less than American ones. The result has been 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in the war. Since the U.S. invasion, the average Iraqi has become 2.5 times more likely to die than before the invasion. What the Iraqis have bought with their lives is a forced political process, a constitution which just squeaked past and is expected to be amended so significantly it can hardly be called a constitution, and a security situation which has scarcely improved from all out war. Ironically, it is also the one facet of the War that could have been avoided.

So the War on Terror we are actually getting is just the same old law enforcement anti-terrorism paradigm (the efficacy of which we now know nothing about), tied up with a more nuclear-armed world and tens of thousands of Iraqi’s killed in the place of thousands of would-be Americans killed. It’s hard to understand how the rhetoric of a President with failing grades is keeping us or anybody else safe from the dangers of a new century. Perhaps our only consolation is knowing that eventually, once the statute of limitations for political blame has run out, the War on Terror (like its predecessor the War on Drugs) will be exposed for what it is: a flawed policy for an imperfect world, dressed up in the gravest possible terms for the political gain it provides, without much social benefit accompanying it.