Does George W. Bush Understand Terrorism?

October 22, 2004

Last week, former mayor Ed Koch was a guest on The Daily Show and discussed how he supports reelecting George Bush, despite disagreeing with the President on just about every domestic issue, because stopping international terrorism is the most important issue facing America. An Annenberg Center poll finds that 52% of respondents trusted President Bush to do a better job at "handling the U.S. war on terrorism," with only 40% trusting Senator Kerry. Huh?

Bush's record in foreign policy is a key reason to vote against him. While Bush, Cheney and their acolytes argue that John Kerry does not have the balls to fight the war on terror, the Bush Adminstration fails to understand the nature of the war on terror. Not only that, but even under the Bush Adminsitration's own worldview, their actual achievements are a miserable failure.

Prof. Cooper wonders Does George W. Bush Understand Terrorism?

One of the more puzzling arguments I've seen in support of George W. Bush's re-election is that, unlike John Kerry, Bush understands how the world has changed in the wake of September 11. I encounter this argument repeatedly. Often, it comes from people who aren't thrilled by much of Bush's domestic agenda; sometimes, indeed, it comes from people who are appalled by the administration's fiscal profligacy but are inclined to vote for Bush anyway because of the terrorism issue. But I just don't get it. Sure, the president's speechwriters have written powerfully on the evils of terrorism. But the administration's actions largely belie their claim that they, and only they, understand the real dangers posed by terrorism

Legal Fiction assesses The Worst Pro-Bush Argument

One recurring argument I hear in favor of Bush is that Kerry's foreign policy instincts cannot be trusted, or that he doesn't understand the post-9/11 world.... you hear stuff like this all the time cited as the justification for not abandoning Bush. And let me say what's on my mind - this particular argument is insane. I-N-S-A-N-E. It annoys me to no end. It's like fingernails scraping across the chalkboard. I literally cringe when I hear it. Basically, when I hear someone raise this argument, I want to squeeze both sides of that person's head, shake it violently, and scream, "Have you seen this f***ing President we have?!? Have you read a newspaper in the last four years?!?"

Yet those who support Bush because of his approach to anti-terrorism policy are either out of touch with reality or willfully blind. A Program on International Policy Attitudes survey found that indeed, Bush supporters are unaware of facts and actual Bush policy, "75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found."

Elements of the "war on terror"

The "war on terror" involves three broad elements: promoting homeland security, stopping terror groups, and ending the environment which leads to terrorism. Homeland security involves domestic intelligence, securing borders, ports and entry points.

Stopping terror groups is a function of espionage/surveillance, criminal law, diplomacy, and military action. Intelligence is required to find terror cells. This procedure is very similar to uncovering organized crime rings. Diplomatic tact is necessary to obtain relevant information with other states (like Spain, France and the UK) which may be the home to other cells or members of a network. Military action is necessary only to find training camps, munitions factories or other assets which resemble those used by states, such as in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Finally, ending the environment involves deterring state sponsors of terrorism, preventing and remedying broken states and promoting economic opportunity and participatory democracy. State sponsors of anti-American terror are few and far between; no substantive link existed between Iraq and al-Qaeda before 2003. The Taliban was a state supported by terrorists more than it was a state sponsor of terrorists. Lawless areas of chaos in broken states, such as Afghanistan, Iraq. are the natural gathering places for terrorists, as they can operate without scrutiny from law enforcement. Promoting economic opportunity and participatory democracy means winning the "war of ideas." When the US supports repressive governments which stifle dissent and have a weak economy with few opportunities for success, such as Saudi Arabia, the internal anger against the government extends to anger against the US if the US continues to support that government. By blindly supporting repressive oil regimes, the US is another one of the bad guys.

Bush's Failures

Failure to promote homeland security
Despite creating a snazzy color-coded alert system, the Department of Homeland Security has failed to secure sensitive facilities. Public Citizen reports Bush Administration Leaves Chemical and Nuclear Plants, HazMat, Ports and Water Systems Vulnerable to Terrorists and blames the Adminstration's "aversion to regulation and [its] allegiance to campaign contributors" as the prime reasons for this failure.

While Dick Cheney reminds voters that the worst potential catastrophe is nuclear terrorism, the Bush Administration has failed to prioritize nuclear non-proliferation.

Failure to Understand the Nature of the Threat

In the Washington Post, Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer discuss how the Bush approach to fighting terror, which focuses on states and particular, individual al-Qaeda leaders is insufficient to meet the threat on a macro level: Afghanistan, Iraq: Two Wars Collide.

Foreign policy realists recognize state power as the driving force in foreign affairs. The Bush approach not only focuses on state and military power, it undervalues the impact of non-state actors, like al-Qaeda and is openly hostile towards the efficacy of soft power.

The Bush policy fundamentally unable to deal with this threat. By focusing only on the use of hard, military power, rather than soft power, the Bush policy is unable to create an environment where the US is once again the moral leader of the world. using soft power to obtain these ends. Theodore Roosevelt famously described the art of diplomacy as the need to "speak softly and carry a big stick." Instead of using force as one component, the Bush Administration has completely ignored Roosevelt and tact. The Bush approach is to carry a big stick and announce, "hey, motherfuckers, I've got one hell of a big motherfucking stick, and I'm going to swing it wherever the fuck I want, so come here and help me or get out of my motherfucking way."

John Eisenhower Why I will vote for John Kerry for President

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

Matt Haughey uses a different example, Keeping it Simple:

In the debates, Bush made it clear that his plan for keeping us secure at home was simple: always be on the offensive. He got a lot of play from it and a lot of support. But the idea of starting wars to be safe defies logic to me.

Let's say you're on a long road trip, looking for a bite to eat and a drink so you pull into an unknown bar. The place is pretty rowdy and you're kind of concerned for your safety. So you go on the offensive.

If you walked around the bar starting fights with half a dozen of the largest guys, do you think you'd be safer?

Campaign Strategy

Yet, the Bush campaign is based on the fallacy that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists. The NY Times editorial board noted and condemned this practice: Chiller Theater, "The Republicans' habit of suggesting that a vote for Mr. Kerry is a vote for the terrorists - a notion that drew an embarrassing endorsement from President Vladimir Putin this week - is a reminder of the reckless way this administration has squandered the public trust on public safety."

The Bush campaign will continue to attempt to confuse and frighten voters until the election: Our two main weapons are fear and fear...and fear.

Kerry provides a far superior choice

Even the New Republic, which published some of the most vocal support of the unnecessary war in Iraq now supports John Kerry for President. In another piece, Spencer Ackerman argues that Kerry would fight terrorism better and provides a clear and concise look at how and why:

In a rare moment of candor, Bush conceded in an August interview, "I don't think you can win" the war on terrorism. But Al Qaeda is not invincible. It has to denounce mainstream Islamic clerics to give its religious pronouncements credibility. Its jihadists can be isolated, captured, and killed. If elected president, Kerry will inherit the Iraq occupation, a revitalized Al Qaeda, and a surge in anti-American sentiment, all of which will make prosecuting the war on terrorism extremely difficult. But he will be armed with a strategy that attacks Al Qaeda both ideologically and militarily--something the Bush administration has failed to do. Bush probably echoes many Americans when he wonders if the war on terrorism can in fact be won. A Kerry administration just might show him how to do it.

Posted by Andrew Raff at October 22, 2004 3:58 PM