In a conference call earlier today, two of John McCain's terrorism "advisers", neo-con ideologue Randy Scheunemann and former CIA director James Woolsey criticized Barack Obama as having a "a perfect manifestation of the September 10th" , which Woolsey characterized as "very dangerous and naive approach."
It's only June and the GOP is already bringing out their favorite election weapon: incessant fear mongering and intimidation of voters who are already on edge because of the volatile situation with the economy and energy prices. Yet again, in trying to impugn Senator Obama as "naive" on terrorism, the Republicans implying that the United States will be blown to oblivion if a Democrat were to be elected.
Governing based on fear has been the specialty of the Republicans during the Bush Administration. By adopting an authoritarian and wholly pre-emptive approach to fighting terrorism, the GOP has been able to mount a thin justification for their flagrant abuses of the Constitution in the last 7 years.
In fact, endorsing the Constitution as a method of vitiating terrorism is precisely what has raised the ire of the maniacal war mongers that inhabit McCain's campaign. In essence, Barack Obama stated that a law and order approach to fighting terrorism, one that is perfectly within the constraints of the Constitution, is applicable in a post 9/11 world. Perversely, it is exactly that assertion, that the Constitution is a sufficient bulwark, that Woolsey and Scheunemann objected to today. After years of trampling on rights and liberties imbued into the Constitution, I guess they don't notice the obvious, though slightly sickening irony.
Since Woolsey and Scheunemann decided to bring up the merits of their approach to offsetting terrorism when compared to Obama's approach in a blatant, and pitiful attempt to fear monger, it's apt to compare and contrast the two.
The best comparison is thus to examine two terrorist attacks, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which was investigated and subsequently adjudicated via the law and order method, and the 9/11 attacks, which was pursued almost solely within the framework of pre-emption that Neo-Cons have long espoused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the devastation wrought by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Clinton Administration delegated the responsibility of solving the crime to officials most intimately acquainted with the law and order method.
The results?
The 3 culprits behind the attack, including the leader, Ramzi Yousef are behind bars for the remainder of their lives. The FBI, with cooperation from foreign intelligence services and other branches of government, apprehended numerous suspects summarily, and largely without fanfare. Yousef was subsequently captured 2 years later in Pakistan.
All in all, the investigation was conducted professionally and with an explicit urgency given the heinous nature of the attacks. Most importantly, the successful apprehension and imprisonment was conducted within the constraints of the Constitution.
Contrast that approach with the one employed by the Bush Administration in response to the 9/11 attacks. Admittedly, the 9/11 attacks were of a much more stentorian scale than that of the first WTC attack 8 years. However, the scale of the investigation needed to capture those responsible, although larger, did not require a whole scale change that the Administration ultimately employed.
The results?
Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri remain on the loose somewhere, at least we hope, in the tribal areas separating Afghanistan and Pakistan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, arguably the mastermind behind the attacks, was apprehended in Pakistan, but was subsequently treated with so little decency, nor tact, that ended up feeding a Thanksgiving dinner worth of false intelligence to American investigators.
More over, 6 years after the fact, Mohammed's "military commission", in which justice would be finally meted out, remains in legal limbo because of the highly unconstitutional tactics utilized by the Administration. These are tactics, though now widely discredited, that were part of the arsenal of the "pre-emptive" approach advocated by such sages as the aforementioned Woolsey and Scheunemann.
Most damaging to the overall U.S. effort against Al-Qaeda worldwide has been the predilection within the Administration towards a pre-emptive doctrine, as evidence by the calamitous situation we now find ourselves in with Iraq. By foolishly and deceptively invading a country in the name of "preventing a terrorist attack" (evidence to that end non withstanding), the Administration thereby took the emphasis on the individuals actually responsible for the tragedy that was September 11th.
As the example of Iraq clearly shows, the Bush doctrine, which emphasizes guess-work and hypothetical over the tried and true methods proven to be successful in 1993, is hardly the panacea for those who wish to be rid of the terrorist threat. Rather, it is exactly the type of "solution" that will exacerbate our problems and therefore put more lives at risk.
Ramzi Yousef did not metamorphose into a martyr, as did KSM, and other terrorists who have managed to goad the United States into abandoning the Constitution in favor of torture, coercion and lawlessness. The trio of suspects incarcerated after 1993 did not serve as symbolic to the Muslim world of the hypocrisy and duplicity of the United States. Guess who did? How about the Al- Jazeera cameraman who was imprisoned for 6 years without access to any semblance of due process? Or, the Syrian who was arrested in Canada at the behest of the United States, and then sent to a Gulag-style black site in Central Europe to be tortured?
Ultimately, the "War on Terror" will not be solved by the tactics of the FBI or a cruise missile strike into the heart of Tehran. Rather, it will be solved by the gradual amelioration of anger that Muslims justifiably feel towards the United States foreign policy. As most social movements that preceded it have, Terrorism will fade once it is bereft of public support. Guantanamo Bay, and the greater Bush policies to fight the War on Terror only serve to prevent that day from coming to fruition
Despite all of the evidence mentioned above that countermands their argument Scheuenemann and Woolsey actually keep a straight face, and a somnolent tone when they profess that their theories of fighting terrorism supersede the law and order method highlighted by Senator Obama. In all likelihood, the seriousness with which they deliver those messages are a product of the delusions intrinsic to the Neo-Con world view.
However, what is dangerous about their approach is that it likely to be a sword wielded upon the electorate ad nauseum prior to November. Republicans will profess, with signature zeal and unction, that they are the best at keeping Americans alive, despite significant evidence to the contrary. They realize that they are shithouse on the economy, health care and the environment, and as a result will turn desperately for any branch to which to cling as they attempt to retain the White House. Expect a litany of sophistry and slander like that proffered today to arise yet again.
As a result, it will be incumbent upon Sen. Obama's campaign to fight vigorously, at at times, ruthlessly against the GOP fear mongering machine. As the previous paragraphs prove, it will behoove the Democrats to emphasize the investigation of 1993 versus the one in 2001 to discount the Republicans arguments.
If they don't, Obama could potentially lose, and his campaign will only have itself to blame Obama will likely be devastated if he is sent back to the Senate in November.
But his devastation pales when compared to that which could be levied upon the country were the Bush-McCain policies to fight terrorism to be continued.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment