George, Your OVERT War on Terror is Failing

[Writer]

"Bin Laden is wanted, dead or alive," Bush spoke no longer than four years ago. Round 'em up. Tie 'em up. Gig 'em.

"Bring 'em on," the wild west sheriff taunted two years later, following his white knighted ride into Baghdad and the ensuing insurgency thereafter.

Bush speaks like he walks - with swagger and unchecked confidence. Bush answers journalists who call attention to his failings in Iraq with disdainful laughter, at times laughing over the comment that 1700 American soldiers have died. That's bad politics for a man so confident.

Here's more: "We're taking the fight to the terrorists so the terrorists don't fight us at home," he said in a recent interview on the British network ITN.

But George, as I sit here this evening reviewing headlines of 40 dead and hundreds wounded in the worst attack on London since World War Two, may I be the first to mention to you that "that dog don't hunt?"

Taking the fight to the terrorists? It sounds like more swagger to me.

I'll call it the Dark Days of America. Yes, the Dark Days (my tongue firmly pressed into my cheek). The days before 9/11/01 when America dwelt in the dark about terrorist threat. We donned pleather, soaked in Beck, checked our 401K's and overall felt pretty good.

At least that's what we were supposed to believe. Like Little Red Riding Hood stopped suddenly by the Big Bad Wolf, we're supposed to think that the Terror Attacks of 2001 are the dawn of a new era. A call for war. Of blasting the enemy with heavy artillery. Of an overt "War on Terror."

Yet terrorism has been woven within the framework of our world for decades. Underneath, underground, only to rear its head for the few notable times terrorists actually achieved some success.

The Achille Lauro hijacking in 1986. The downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. The first bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the attack on the USS Cole in the waning months of 2000.

Pay attention to those years. Are we to believe there wasn't a "War on Terror" then? Were we sitting idly by until finally (whew) we woke up on the morning of September 11, 2001?

Hardly. Underneath the feet of innocent citizens the real war on terror raged, and had been raging for many years before 2001. Yet the war didn't contain bombs nor tanks nor heavy artillery. It entailed phone calls, espionage, and intelligence. The real war on terror - the one we should be concentrating on now - has been a covert war that we have fought all along.

The reasons for a covert war are simple. Terrorists are powerless, and for a cornucopia of reasons, attempt to gain power by attacking the powerful. They plan secretly, conspiring to act quietly. This is the battleground on which they fight. Hence, this is the battleground on which we should fight as well. Bringing it out in the open only exposes one's hand to the enemy.

Yet Bush decided an overt war was needed. For reasons that have shifted as often as his swaggering hips, Bush has claimed that invading Iraq makes America safer. Bush, the Gambler, hasn't learned the true benefit of keeping one's cards to himself.

Yet he has, and now 1700 dead Americans later, he still doesn't understand how shaking the bee's nest that is the Middle East is getting everyone stung. Potential terrorists can see us kill their brethren and that is making them rather upset. They watch us destroy Arab buildings, dehumanize Arabs in revolting prisoner photos, and kill thousands of innocents. Nothing can embolden terrorists more than what Bush is doing currently.

Now London is suffering from the results of this shameful operation. George, your overt War on Terror is failing.

Go ahead, George, ask the Brits. As they now are reeling from today's tragedy, recall the many decades they dealt with their own homeland terror - that of the IRA. Rarely had the British government taken the dismantling of these terrorists above ground. Typically it was a covert affair. Secret. Effective. And not too long ago, followed by aggressive peace talks.

Besides, England never invaded France to aleve the problem, now, did they?

When will you ever learn, George?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. So now we need to shock and awe England?? Following shrub's

logic... that is what would happen. You could apply the logic he used to absorb Iraq to any number of countries and of course, he would see no problem with it.

[marmar]

2. 'cause you cannot defeat terrorism with war

Fighting terrorists is not like fighting a nation's army, they have a completely different M.O. Bushco knows this, but their wars aren't really about terrorism. I'm sure they want terrorists to continue doing what they do, otherwise they wouldn't have anything to hide behind.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Check this out..... if you haven't seen it.....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4687.htm


Bush and Terrorists: They Need Each Other
Brian Whitaker • The Guardian

LONDON, 12 September 2003 — Politicians have a habit of declaring war on all sorts of intangible enemies — war on crime, war on drugs, war on whatever. These are only wars in a manner of speaking and we don’t normally expect aircraft carriers to be dispatched and missiles readied in order to deal with them.

Five days after the Sept. 11 suicide attacks on New York and Washington, President George Bush declared his intention to retaliate. “This crusade, this war on terrorism,” he said, “is going to take a while”.

The word “crusade” proved an immediate own-goal, alarming Muslims with its historical allusion, and White House officials hastily back-tracked, making clear that “crusade” was only a figure of speech.

But the “war” on terrorism was not a figure of speech. As the world soon discovered, George Bush meant it literally.

From the very beginning, the war on terrorism was ill-conceived. Amid the trauma of Sept. 11, that was understandable and to some extent excusable, but the US has done little or nothing over the last two years to refine its concept and the objectives of the war are even more muddled today than they were in 2001.

[marmar]

6. Great piece...

Sums up how I feel exactly.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. One more.... from the scrolling articles at the bottom....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9409.htm



Why London, Why Now?

Patrick Doherty

07/07/05 "TomPaine.com" - - As I write this, the reports are still coming in on the extent of the casualties from the London subway bombings. The latest AP report says 40 have been killed and 1,000 wounded. There can be no justification for such an attack, which must be condemned and the perpetrators must brought to (British) justice. My condolences go out to the people of London and I can only hope that my friends and former colleagues there are safe.

That said, now is the time for progressives to lead and not just wait for Bush. It is imperative that the narrative that emerges from the devastation in London is not one that plays into the hands of Al Qaeda or into the hands of the neocons, as happened after 9/11.

Don't Repeat Past Mistakes

That post-9/11 narrative said that America was attacked because "they hate our freedoms." This turned out to be the first of many lies that paved the way to our current strategic disaster. In fact, America was attacked because Al Qaeda hated our policies in the Middle East and, given their relative inability to strike effectively at either the Saudi or Israeli governments—their main enemies—they struck at those governments' primary sponsor, the United States.

Yet that simple narrative, "because they hate our freedoms," constructed carefully by the White House communications team, laid the foundation for the war on Iraq and the expansion of the war on terrorism well beyond the justifiable and proportionate retaliation on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Americans believed Al Qaeda was targeting the United States because we stood for democracy, when, in reality, they hated us because we massively supported oppressive regimes in the Middle East.

[Writer]

8. Excellent article!

Thanks for sharing!

[ClusterFreak]

3. You've nailed it. Great post! n/t

:thumbsup:

[wisteria]

4. You get right to the point of the matter,

I have been slow to come to this conclusion,but it is clear to me now.
George Bush has it all wrong. He needs to seriously rethink the strategy we are using against the terrorists.Yours is a good post!