Look Busy, Do Nothing

It’s getting to seem like you can’t listen to analysis of this year’s presidential field without hearing the same tiresome comparison of the Democratic and Republican parties’ strengths: Democrats are strong on domestic issues, they say, but Republicans are strong on foreign policy. In this framework, for a Democrat to win he would need to keep the focus of the race on issues like jobs, the economy and Social Security. And if President Bush wants to be reelected, he’ll have to remind people that he’s “tough on terrorism.”

Bush certainly knows how to look busy when it comes to defending the homeland, and his administration’s commitment to the War on Terror is almost never questioned. Just peruse the list: invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq, setting up military tribunals to try suspected terrorists, dramatically increasing the Justice Department’s surveillance authority, holding suspected terrorists without charges or access to a lawyer, slowing down the process of issuing visas to students and visitors, requiring people from “problem” countries to register their pictures and fingerprints with the Department of Homeland Security and so on. A list that long has got to mean that they’re really busy. And if they’re busy, then they must be doing a lot to keep us safe, right?

But as is so often the case with the Bush administration, there’s much less there than meets the eye. Bush’s flagship efforts in the War on Terror have undeniably been his two traditional nation-on-nation wars—in Afghanistan and Iraq. How have they made us safer? Well, Afghanistan is probably the more successful of the two, considering that (unlike Saddam Hussein’s regime) the Taliban was actually giving material support to al Qaeda, and is now no longer in a position to do so. But how long will that last? Bush’s philosophical aversion to nation-building, which he announced during the presidential debate of October 11, 2000, has so far prevented him from committing the necessary amounts of troops or reconstruction money to the war-torn nation. November’s $87 billion appropriation to “fight terrorism” in Afghanistan and Iraq earmarked a mere $1.2 billion for Afghan reconstruction (with another $10 billion for continued military operations there), and the measly deployment of American peacekeepers in Afghanistan means that the country is being run mostly by local warlords and drug-runners. And to top it all off, al Qaeda may no longer be the official guest of the Afghan government, but it nevertheless has a continued presence in the southeastern provinces along the border with Pakistan. Of course, it goes without saying that Osama bin Laden remains at large (ignoring the popular conspiracy theory that we’ve already captured him and Bush is waiting to reveal that in November).

What about Iraq? Bush never demonstrated any convincing link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and his own weapons inspector now says Iraq probably didn’t have the weapons we were led to believe it had. But put that aside. It’s clear just from looking at the number of Americans killed so far—more than 500, with many more wounded—that the war in Iraq has been a bigger threat to Americans’ safety than any terrorist attack against us except September 11 itself. And what kind of a future is Bush’s unprovoked invasion of Iraq creating? One in which reasonable people, not just terrorists, can argue that the United States is an aggressive, dominating power; one in which sectarian rivalries and historical forces we can hardly predict pull Iraq towards potential civil war or Islamic revolution; one in which terrorists have a new target and a renewed cause.

And the rest of the Bush War on Terror? Why did Bush’s Congress spend $8.5 million of the $87 billion Iraq and Afghanistan appropriation on security for November’s Free Trade Area of the Americas talks in Miami? That money, theoretically intended to further his “tough on terrorism” agenda, instead financed the silencing and imprisonment of dozens of non-violent protestors who dared to take issue with his politics.

So yes, the Bush administration is doing a lot in the name of fighting terrorism. Invading Iraq was undoubtedly a big deal. The same with Afghanistan. And removing our civil liberties is a big deal too. But just because they look busy, it doesn’t mean they’re actually doing anything to make us safer. Next time you hear someone characterize Bush as weak on the economy and strong on defense, take a second to look past the spin.

Thomas D. Odell ’04-’05 is a Near Eastern languages and civilizations concentrator in Winthrop House.