9/11 Plus Two: Enemy Revealed By A Look In The Mirror

http://toogoodreports.com/ ^ | September 11, 2003 | Lowell Phillips

[F_Cohen]

9/11 Plus Two: Enemy Revealed By A Look In The Mirror

By Lowell Phillips

Toogood Reports

September 11, 2003

Contemplating the events of 9/11 and the freshness of them in my mind, it's hard to believe that two years have already passed. Gazing out across the political landscape however, it feels more like a century and at times like it never happened at all. The righteous anger is largely gone, replaced by ambivalence, if not outright boredom.

Watching President Bush's address to the nation this past Sunday, I was struck by the absence of the aura that emerged in the wake of the al Queda attacks. Is he a different man? No. Except for a few more gray hairs he's still that leader who a stunned American people looked to for reassurance and decisiveness. He, it seems, more than anyone remembers what was asked of him and what he was duty bound to do. Unfortunately, the nation he is attempting to lead bears little resemblance to that of two years ago. Bush continues working faithfully to give us what we demanded. But I couldn't help but see a subtle hint of abandonment in his eyes, not unlike a father whose children have lost interest in a gift they begged him for, even before he's finished building it.

However horrible the events of that dark day, I immediately had my doubts about the wherewithal of the American people. I doubted our willingness to sacrifice, to accept unpleasant realities and in general our patience, all of which would be needed to have any hope of success in a war against terrorism. If public opinion polls and the barrage of petty complaints are any indication, my fears were well founded. Pointing out that the American people have a short attention span and an ignorance of history isn't difficult. Sustaining morale for a war effort is a challenge for any nation, and this is even truer for Americans. But there can be no excuse for weakness, however typical, when so much is at stake.

The difficult task of steeling often capricious American fortitude has been made all but impossible by a dominant media whose coverage is nothing short of a betrayal and an opposition political party that views the war as sport and every dead GI as an opportunity. Had anyone predicted that after two years of war and the defeat and occupation of two countries with a combined population of 50 million that we would have sustained less than 500 American dead, they'd have been dismissed as insane. This is the reality, yet we have been inundated with descriptions of "chaos," "defeat," and "failure."

Comparing the War on Terror to Vietnam began before the United States fired its first shot. With every complication and U.S. casualty the comparison becomes more widespread and hyperbolic, exploiting the media-created perception that war can be antiseptic. Measuring this war or any war against this standard is guaranteeing a perception of failure. The daily reports of "mistakes" in execution and "miscalculations" in planning supported by conveniently unnamed sources foment doubts in the Bush administration's leadership, clouding the most lopsided military campaigns in the history of warfare. Surely reporters, historians and those unnamed sources could rattle off a list of previous conflicts where no mistakes were made and where plans drafted beforehand survived unaltered through battle, occupation and "reconstruction." Perhaps they can name one?

Don't bet on it.

Any lingering doubts as to whether the Democrat Party is an anti-war party have been swept away. Congressional Democrats and the field of presidential hopefuls are regularly invoking terms like "miserable failure" and "quagmire." They are weaving conspiracy theories about how this nation was "misled" into a war in Iraq; a war that they contend has nothing to do with the War on Terror. "Why invade Iraq," they ask, when Iran and North Korea are greater threats. Any presence of terrorists in Saddam's former kingdom is the result of Bush's invasion, rather than a reason for it. And increasingly there is talk of "withdrawal," only sometimes euphemistically called "internationalization."

Emphasizing American military shortcomings, caused largely by Clinton-era cutbacks, they speak of the need for United Nations expertise, wisdom and prowess. The U.N. would have been there from the outset had President Bush not acted like a "cowboy" and "dissed" them, noble champions of the oppressed and builders of a better world that they are. Encouraged along by promises of government-subsidized everything, paid for with the funds now being used to prosecute the war, more and more Americans are listening and absorbing the rhetoric. And how could they not, when that's all they hear?

But that growing minority are not the only ones listening. Like the Soviets and North Vietnamese from the left's favorite example of American failure, Iran, Syria, Libya and the terrorist operatives they support in Iraq and around the world are listening as well. And so too are the Iraqi people. 24-hour news and satellite TV is making that more certain than ever.

With the swift fall of the Taliban and the destruction of the Hussein regime, terrorists organizations and their sponsors quaked and wondered, "who's next?" But no longer. By tapping into the omnipresent media they see a U.S. president who is besieged and an array of his political enemies leveraging every dead American soldier, every destroyed power line and every dollar that is spent. And they see what they have always banked on, an irresolute paper tiger.

The Iraqi people, whose cooperation and loyalty are crucial, are now surely having doubts. Much depends on them to help build democracy and provide intelligence to combat Baathist holdouts and foreign terrorists, but seeing George W. Bush being undercut, and Democrats that may replace him in the near future talking openly of pulling out, exactly why should they risk their lives? After all, the U.S. has abandoned them before.

Americans who are growing disenchanted with the war are doing so in part because of political opportunism by Democrats and misleading reporting by the media. Fairy stories about the awe-inspiring abilities of the United Nations and their vaunted "moral authority" belie the reality that the "world government" has proven itself time and again to be woefully incapable of establishing peace, maintaining peace, or creating democracy. Moreover, the contention that, had the Bush administration been more diplomatic, we could have gotten U.N. approval for the removal of Saddam is simply ludicrous. Nations on the Security Council that opposed such action were known to have cozy and profitable relationships with Saddam's government, and the U.N. itself was making a killing managing the "Oil for Food" program.

Had there been any desire to see to it that resolutions were adhered to, we would not have witnessed 12 years of inaction. Were there any desire by the United Nations to combat terrorism, Syria would not currently sit on the Security Council, Libya would not chair the Commission on Human Rights and the obvious favoritism for Palestinian fanatics over the democratic state of Israel would be abandoned. The truth is that the international community that the American left so extols would have been perfectly comfortable with the United States living the same bloody reality that Israel struggles with, no matter how "diplomatic" Bush might have been.

Critics arguing that Iraq is an unwarranted distraction, conveniently omit the fact that al Qaeda lieutenant, Abu Massad Al-Zakawi, was known to be operating there before the war. They ignore the long-term presence of the al Qaeda affiliated group Ansar al-Islam. And they disregard identified terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq and at Salman Pak outside Baghdad, to say nothing of Saddam's clear involvement with numerous Palestinian terrorist groups.

Those lamenting the difficulties in combating fanatics and condemning the invasion of Iraq because there was no proof of "direct involvement" with 9/11 are selectively oblivious to the reality that this is what a "war" on terror was destined to look like. Wherever such a war took us, we would be faced with elusive and suicidal combatants who were eager to use civilians to shield themselves. Attempting to make war on terrorists without dealing with the nations that harbor them would have been futile. Accepting the need to do so, but only after proof of direct involvement in a specific terrorist act would have been little different.

The sponsors of Islamic terrorism are well established. But even those nations where al Qaeda operatives are known to reside could not be accused of direct involvement in 9/11, at least not to the degree of certainty being demanded by Bush's critics. We know that the Taliban sheltered al Qaeda; their involvement or foreknowledge of 9/11 however is not that certain. Had we attacked Syria, Iraq or any other such nation, the same arguments that are now used to attack the president could, and likely would, have been used.

There has indeed been a distraction over the last two years, but it was not the justifiable invasion of Iraq. For too many it was 9/11 itself. As Rush Limbaugh recently put it; to the Left, the War on Terror is "no big deal." For that elderly caller to a local talk show it's an annoyance when "so many people can't afford prescription drugs." Sure it's sad that 3,000 of our fellow citizens died, but that was years ago. It would be nice to prevent such things in the future, but how can we expect that to take precedence when Democrats want Washington back, and old folks want a discount at the local pharmacy?

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Lowell at lfpphillips@yahoo.com .