Posted on 09/26/2001 5:08:01 AM PDT by vrwc54
In his speech defining American policy on September 20, President George W. Bush explained what he meant by declaring "war on terror" and told the American people what it will mean to them. Overall, it was a strong presentation, with some parts exactly right, but it also contains errors that urgently require fixing.Let's start with five good points:
* The enemy's goal: It's "not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life."
That involves "remaking the world - and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere." The president shows no illusions that al-Qaida's problem is American freedoms or United States policy in the Middle East, but something far more ambitious - the very existence of the US in its present form. As he put it, "In Afghanistan, we see al-Qaida's vision for the world," one which applies no less to New York than to Kabul.
* The enemy's nature: It is the heir "of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century... they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism." (What happened to Communism, though? Omitted so as not to offend China?)
* The enemy's method: Individuals from more than 60 countries are recruited, taken mainly to Afghanistan, trained, then sent to "hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction."
* The enemy's brutality: Its leadership "commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children."
* Defining the problem: The airline hijackings on September 11 constituted an "act of war." They were not crimes, but part of a concerted military effort by al-Qaida, "a radical network of terrorists," and the governments supporting it.
But the president also got five matters wrong:
* The enemy's identity: He avoids calling America's opponent by its name - militant Islam - preferring euphemisms such as "terrorist group[s] of global reach." Two problems here: Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy; and not explicitly defining the enemy leads to confusion and dissension.
* The enemy's location: The address dealt only with foreign threats ("drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest," "pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism"), ignoring the more delicate but equally vital US domestic angle.
The new "Office of Homeland Security" has not just to protect Americans from foreign attack but extirpate the enemy within US borders.
* The enemy's appeal: The president dismissed al-Qaida's version of Islam as a repudiated "fringe form of Islamic extremism."
Hardly. Muslims on the streets of many places - Pakistan and Gaza, in particular - are fervently rallying to the defense of al-Qaida's vision of Islam. Likewise, the president's calling the terrorists "traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam" implies that other Muslims see them as apostates, which is simply wrong.
Al-Qaida enjoys wide popularity; the very best the US government can hope for is a measure of Muslim neutrality and apathy.
* US goals: These are inconsistent. "Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaida who hide in your land" implies that were the Afghan authorities to hand over a few individuals, the war effort would end, with no further concern about militant Islam. Contrarily, saying that the war effort will continue until "every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" implies an ambitious effort against the forces of militant Islam. This contradiction contains the seeds of future problems. Bush needs to clarify that the latter is his real goal.
* US foreign policy: "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This unrealistic bifurcation will not work in the real world of messy and competing interests. Preventing terrorism may seem like the only priority this week but it's not likely to maintain such total paramountcy for long, and making policy on this basis will lead to problems.
In short, while the president showed an excellent understanding of militant Islam - calling it totalitarian was especially important - he shied away from specifying it as the enemy and made unrealistic statements about the nature of the struggle ahead. These mistakes need urgently to be fixed, before they do damage.
Under this athority, the US Navy and Marines conducted a 9 or 10 year war against the pirates, attacking them wherever they were to be found on land or sea. The "shores of Tripoli" reference in the Marine Hymn comes from this campaign. The length of the war is indefinite because it ended with two peace treaties, a "Treaty of Peace and Amnity with the Bey of Algiers" in 1815, and an "Amended Treaty" in 1816.
The central problem with what President Bush sought from Congress is not the lack of precision in naming the enemy, it is the failure to ask for a formal declaration of war from Congress. And, by the way, the first article on this subject on this board by Newsmax, has the wrong citation. It is House Joint Resolution 63, not 62, which is a formal declaration of war, and which was tabled rather than considered, in the House. It is quoted in the third llink, below.
The (More er Less) Honorable Billybob,
cyberCongressman from Western Carolina
"We will starve the terrorists of funding, turn them against each other, root them out of their safe hiding places and bring them to justice," Mr Bush said.Is very much like
We will attack him wherever he may be found, and we will fall on him as dew settles on the ground. Neither he nor any of his men will be left alive. If he withdraws into a city, then all Israel will bring ropes to that city, and we will drag it down to the valley until not even a piece of it can be found."
Bush has soft pedalled the issues in order to gain allies, always a chancy proposition. The militant extremists of every stripe must be extirpated from the fabric of human society, not only those of Islam. At the moment Islam is the largest and most dangerous, hopefully only the first enemy to be defeated.
Congress declared war
But at the moment the officer of Our Fraternal Republic's feral gummint whose role in such matters is very strictly limited by Our Founding Law has arrogantly, unlawfully, illegally and unconstitutionally -- KKKli'ton-style -- regally assembled and dispatched a huge army without so much as a by your leave to Congress!
A bit scary, tell your Mum.
At the start of the Kosovo "war" several members of Congress filed suit claiming that Clinton could not commit acts of war (other than an immediate response to nuclear attack) without a declaration by Congress. The federal courts turned coward, ruled that Congress must have approved since it voted the money, and ran like a scalded cat from the central issue of whether the War Powers Resolution was constitutional, or not.
If someone files suit against this "war," I expect the same result, that the courts will turn tail and run again, like old Yellow Stain, the nickname of Captain Queeg of the USS Cain.
That's the central point of my latest article, "Bush is DEAD Wrong," posted just this morning. Bush should be following the example of the first President Bush, who DID seek and get a declaration from Congress, rather than the multiple examples of Clinton, who never sought such authority -- including his famous "let's lob a couple cruise missiles at Osama and rile him up real good" useless attack in Afghanistan.
Those who are interested in this aspect, and the consequences which may be paid in the deaths of even more Americans than on 9/11, of the non-declaration of war, should read the two articles noted below. The first is short and in laymen's terms. The second is lengthy, with substantial doses of law.
The (More er Less) Honorable Billybob,
cyberCongressman from Western Carolina
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.