 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
|
| I N S I G H T -------- Residue in Beirut Hania Mourtada Testing Americana James Grime Chinese Intentions Shimpei Ara Abandoning Ideology Antonio Fabrizio After Mumbai Blasts Charlie Duerr Sex And Soccer Phillip Wellman An Ally Of Sorts? Molly Nixon Forgetting Africa Krzys Wasilewski |
With Bin Laden neutralized, US should first secure Afghanistan and Iraq
By Antonio Fabrizio
Posted: Sep 17, 2006
On the fifth anniversary of 9/11 attacks, American citizens commemorated the victims of the tragedy that
“changed the world” and people worldwide expressed their solidarity to the victims’ families. Bush’s
speech, however, was highly criticized, both at homeland and abroad, since it sounded too “partisan” –
with close midterm elections taking place in November, to vote for the new American Congress – in a
moment when partisanship should, instead, be left aside.
US President George Bush honored the victims of September 11. He reminded that five years ago, a
group of fanatical terrorists hijacked some airplanes flying over the US and broke down the WTC in
New York – a symbol of the US economic and cultural power in the world. Thousands of lives were lost,
and millions of incredulous, shocked people from all over the planet saw the attack and the fall of the
gigantic Twin Towers.
Yet Bush, in his speech, also defended the way his administration had reacted five years before,
declaring war on terrorists and shaping a doctrine of “preventive war”, aimed at stopping other attacks
over the American soil. He asserted that now America is safer – what would be proven by the fact that
terrorists haven’t been able to place other attacks on the American soil – but not completely safe yet,
as recently discovered in UK, where groups of extremists were discovered attempting to fly to the US.
Then Bush expressed his belief that America has now learned a lot about the enemy, including the
fact that if they could get weapons of mass destruction, they would use it against US. Bush affirmed
that America didn’t ask for this war, but it has become vital to win it now. Then, directly speaking to Bin
Laden, Bush said that America will bring him to justice.
The central part of Bush’s speech, however, focused on the Iraq issue. The president acknowledged
that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the September 11 attacks, but insisted that the regime
of Saddam was a threat in itself. Bush, therefore, defended his choice to start a war against Iraq, and
said America will not leave until a democracy is set up in that country.
American Democrats, and Bush’s critics in general, have criticized his words. Many have said that
Bush’s speech was “instrumental” to the November elections, as did Senator Harry Reid. In fact, one
of the most relevant issues during the electoral campaign has been Iraq, and the need to withdraw/not
withdraw US troops from a war which is becoming more and more unpopular among American voters.
Simply said (but with notable exceptions), Democrats support withdrawal, Republicans oppose it.
A few years ago, most Americans supported Bush’s vision and believed Iraq constituted a threat to
America; they were too scared about terrorists’ threats and Bush’s strategy seemed to suggest that
overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime would have made America safer. Three years later, however,
it's been found out that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, nor was planning to have any.
He was certainly a criminal, a fierce dictator, who deserved to be brought to justice and pay for his
crimes. Yet the war, three years later, is not over yet, and is killing many innocent lives, more than
40,000 Iraqi civilians according to the official statistics, more than 100,000 for some humanitarian
organizations - whereas the declared purpose of Bush’s war was to free the Iraqi people.
What makes things even worse for Bush, is that many American soldiers are dying, and therefore he
is losing support. Only a minority, according to recent polls, still backs Bush’s strategy in Iraq.
Combining the emotional impact of 9/11 commemorations with the need to stay and fight in Iraq may
actually have been a good move to try and regain some support. It may move American votes towards
Republicans. That is why Democrats reacted to the president’s speech.
Bush’s critics also questioned another important point: is the world really safer now, as the president
claimed? It does not seem so: it seems instead, that Taleban groups are resurging in Afghanistan,
and that the terrorist network of Al Qaeda, which had been left out of Iraq before 2003, has now an
operational base in that country too. In this sense, then, Al Qaeda has been even empowered; it has
become, as the BBC defined it, a “franchise” that inspires small groups of people, who get in touch
through the Internet and plan their attacks in places like hotbeds of war, where they can target
American people.
To defend his view, Bush declared that US troops will not leave Iraq until a democracy is set. Yet he
didn’t admit he made a mistake, when he insisted that Saddam’s regime was building weapons of
mass destruction. Admitting it, in fact, would be declaring that a “preventive war” doctrine is a wrong
solution, but he is clearly convinced that the best way to defend American interests and guarantee
American safety is by “attacking before being attacked”.
Nevertheless, that path would put countries in state of semi-permanent war, and undoubtedly it cannot
be accepted by citizens over the long term. Therefore diplomacy remains the privileged way and all
leaders, including Bush, should go through it and trough international organizations, such as the UN,
to establish or change relations with other countries.
A final consideration on Bin Laden. Bush spoke directly to him in his speech, saying that no matter
how long it would take, he would be captured and brought to justice. This is a meaningful point
because, although it is fundamental that criminals must pay for their terrible crimes, focusing only on
them may be a useless dissipation of vital sources. After all, Bin Laden has been neutralized,
because, being the most wanted man in the world, he is constantly hiding himself and does not
represent a threat. Instead, those vital energies could be spent to secure unsafe places, such as
some volatile areas in Iraq and Afghanistan and help with reconstruction.
### ### ###
Antonio Fabrizio is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
By Antonio Fabrizio
Posted: Sep 17, 2006
On the fifth anniversary of 9/11 attacks, American citizens commemorated the victims of the tragedy that
“changed the world” and people worldwide expressed their solidarity to the victims’ families. Bush’s
speech, however, was highly criticized, both at homeland and abroad, since it sounded too “partisan” –
with close midterm elections taking place in November, to vote for the new American Congress – in a
moment when partisanship should, instead, be left aside.
US President George Bush honored the victims of September 11. He reminded that five years ago, a
group of fanatical terrorists hijacked some airplanes flying over the US and broke down the WTC in
New York – a symbol of the US economic and cultural power in the world. Thousands of lives were lost,
and millions of incredulous, shocked people from all over the planet saw the attack and the fall of the
gigantic Twin Towers.
Yet Bush, in his speech, also defended the way his administration had reacted five years before,
declaring war on terrorists and shaping a doctrine of “preventive war”, aimed at stopping other attacks
over the American soil. He asserted that now America is safer – what would be proven by the fact that
terrorists haven’t been able to place other attacks on the American soil – but not completely safe yet,
as recently discovered in UK, where groups of extremists were discovered attempting to fly to the US.
Then Bush expressed his belief that America has now learned a lot about the enemy, including the
fact that if they could get weapons of mass destruction, they would use it against US. Bush affirmed
that America didn’t ask for this war, but it has become vital to win it now. Then, directly speaking to Bin
Laden, Bush said that America will bring him to justice.
The central part of Bush’s speech, however, focused on the Iraq issue. The president acknowledged
that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the September 11 attacks, but insisted that the regime
of Saddam was a threat in itself. Bush, therefore, defended his choice to start a war against Iraq, and
said America will not leave until a democracy is set up in that country.
American Democrats, and Bush’s critics in general, have criticized his words. Many have said that
Bush’s speech was “instrumental” to the November elections, as did Senator Harry Reid. In fact, one
of the most relevant issues during the electoral campaign has been Iraq, and the need to withdraw/not
withdraw US troops from a war which is becoming more and more unpopular among American voters.
Simply said (but with notable exceptions), Democrats support withdrawal, Republicans oppose it.
A few years ago, most Americans supported Bush’s vision and believed Iraq constituted a threat to
America; they were too scared about terrorists’ threats and Bush’s strategy seemed to suggest that
overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime would have made America safer. Three years later, however,
it's been found out that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, nor was planning to have any.
He was certainly a criminal, a fierce dictator, who deserved to be brought to justice and pay for his
crimes. Yet the war, three years later, is not over yet, and is killing many innocent lives, more than
40,000 Iraqi civilians according to the official statistics, more than 100,000 for some humanitarian
organizations - whereas the declared purpose of Bush’s war was to free the Iraqi people.
What makes things even worse for Bush, is that many American soldiers are dying, and therefore he
is losing support. Only a minority, according to recent polls, still backs Bush’s strategy in Iraq.
Combining the emotional impact of 9/11 commemorations with the need to stay and fight in Iraq may
actually have been a good move to try and regain some support. It may move American votes towards
Republicans. That is why Democrats reacted to the president’s speech.
Bush’s critics also questioned another important point: is the world really safer now, as the president
claimed? It does not seem so: it seems instead, that Taleban groups are resurging in Afghanistan,
and that the terrorist network of Al Qaeda, which had been left out of Iraq before 2003, has now an
operational base in that country too. In this sense, then, Al Qaeda has been even empowered; it has
become, as the BBC defined it, a “franchise” that inspires small groups of people, who get in touch
through the Internet and plan their attacks in places like hotbeds of war, where they can target
American people.
To defend his view, Bush declared that US troops will not leave Iraq until a democracy is set. Yet he
didn’t admit he made a mistake, when he insisted that Saddam’s regime was building weapons of
mass destruction. Admitting it, in fact, would be declaring that a “preventive war” doctrine is a wrong
solution, but he is clearly convinced that the best way to defend American interests and guarantee
American safety is by “attacking before being attacked”.
Nevertheless, that path would put countries in state of semi-permanent war, and undoubtedly it cannot
be accepted by citizens over the long term. Therefore diplomacy remains the privileged way and all
leaders, including Bush, should go through it and trough international organizations, such as the UN,
to establish or change relations with other countries.
A final consideration on Bin Laden. Bush spoke directly to him in his speech, saying that no matter
how long it would take, he would be captured and brought to justice. This is a meaningful point
because, although it is fundamental that criminals must pay for their terrible crimes, focusing only on
them may be a useless dissipation of vital sources. After all, Bin Laden has been neutralized,
because, being the most wanted man in the world, he is constantly hiding himself and does not
represent a threat. Instead, those vital energies could be spent to secure unsafe places, such as
some volatile areas in Iraq and Afghanistan and help with reconstruction.
### ### ###
Antonio Fabrizio is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |
| Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |