Lando 
Posted on 07/13/2005 10:13:03 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Some believe the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were so traumatic that the U.S. government and society have unalterably changed. Others suggest that Sept. 11 alone was not enough to adapt U.S. foreign policy for the transnational and national threats of the next 50 years. For the latter, another "shoe" needs to drop for the U.S. government to make dramatic and sustained changes in U.S. foreign policy, the sort made as the Cold War commenced.
Last Thursday, putative Islamists detonated four bombs in London's public transportation system and another on an iconic double-decker bus, all within a short period of time. The attacks were not another "shoe" dropping; they were, nonetheless, important events for citizens of America.
Many similar attacks have occurred since Sept. 11, 2001. To cite a few: Islamists attacked Bali, Indonesia, in October 2002, over 200 persons died; Jihadis attacked Madrid on March 11, 2004, killing some 200; and Chechen Islamists attacked Moscow's subway in early February 2004 killing nearly 40. Few have forgotten the schoolchildren tragically killed in Breslan, Russia, as Islamists seized a school in September 2004 – some 330 perished (including nearly 160 children).
What do the London attacks mean for Americans? Beyond the natural empathy Americans feel for Britons, Thursday's attacks should remind Americans that their country is in an existential war. Since at least Sept. 11, al-Qaeda and other extremist Islamic groups (mostly Sunni adherents to Wahabism) have declared war on America and the West. America and most of the West have similarly declared war on Islamists. The global war on terrorism should be seen as every bit as momentous as was the Cold War.
Unfortunately, far too many Americans have become complacent and mired in the frustrations of Iraq. Indeed, the war in Iraq may have contributed to Americans' complacency. (Polling data show that Americans have become impatient and frustrated with Iraq.) Regrettably, Iraq has become a diversion.
That's not to say that Iraq is disconnected from the global war on terror; it is connected. Whether or not one thinks it was proper for America to invade Iraq, some 140,000 U.S. troops are in that country now; Saddam Hussein is in custody; America has become responsible for Iraq's future (at least in the near term); and, clearly, Islamists and various other miscreants have been drawn to Iraq to confront the America they perceive as evil. America can scarcely walk away and wash its collective hands now!
Iraq has obscured the bigger picture. Namely, America must approach the global war on terror with a similar multigenerational strategy as during the Cold War, but focused on emerging transnational threats; at the same time Americans must not forget that many national threats persists (states possessing weapons of mass destruction, proliferation and the growing pains of continued globalization among them). It is therefore worthwhile to assess, tentatively, the Bush administration inasmuch as it has been in office since nine months before Sept. 11.
If one attempts to be objective, one must admit there has been both good and bad in President Bush's leadership in the war against the global terrorist hydra. First, the positive.
President Bush repeatedly told Americans (especially in the months after Sept. 11 but as recently as 2005) that the struggle would be long, it would require vigilance, and it would cost much in America's blood and treasure. It has: America has spent approximately $300 billion thus far in Iraq; as of Monday, 1,755 Americans have lost their lives while nearly 13,500 have been wounded.
In sharp contrast to presidents during the Vietnam War, however, President Bush has been fairly honest about the costs of the war. Further, there is at least circumstantial evidence that some of the administration's policies have helped prevent additional attacks in America – this is clearly controversial and some believe that Iraq alone has created more "second generation" terrorists.
Nonetheless, America has not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. Bush has signed legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security, a Cabinet-level agency to protect America from emerging threats. (Recently, under Secretary Michael Chertoff's leadership, Homeland Security has begun to function as it was intended.)
Bush also signed into law the Intelligence Reform Act (December 2004) creating, inter alia, a new director of national intelligence, or DNI – someone whose job is to obviate bureaucratic "groupthink." The DNI has budgetary power over most of America's intelligence collection and analysis bureaucracies (15 disparate agencies). America is, at least nominally, safer than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. The administration deserves some credit.
America's military has begun badly needed transformations for the 21st century and emerging transnational and national threats. That Bush resisted many such changes, particularly the commissions that recommended them (the 9/11 and the Robb-Silberman commissions) does not subtract from the fact that he ultimately supported their recommendations against tremendous bureaucratic inertia. Whether one was for or against the war in Iraq, the seeds of a pluralistic society have been planted there.
Now the negative. President Bush has been as good as his word in terms of America's defense appropriations. In 1996 dollars, the average appropriation during key years of the Cold War era was some $280 billion (calculated using Office of Management and Budget "Historical Tables," FY 2003 and the CPI adjustors). The president's 2004 and 2005 defense appropriations (roughly $420 billion each year excluding most supplemental budgets for Iraq) have boosted post-Sept. 11 defense spending by over 50 percent of the Cold War average; including supplemental budgets, the increase has been much greater.
The problem is an excessive number of those dollars have perforce been absorbed by Iraq – a war that the United States, arguably, did not have to fight at this time in order to prosecute effectively the global war on terror. As a result, badly needed dollars for protection of America's critical infrastructure have gone elsewhere. While America's airlines are probably safer than before Sept. 11, and America may be nominally safer in general, the administration has neglected America's shipping ports (Los Angeles-Long Beach is one of the world's busiest ports and critical to America's economy). Railway infrastructure, too, has been neglected. Too little has been done to protect America's critical infrastructure.
So, what do last week's attacks in London mean for Americans? First, they mean that the other "shoe" has yet to drop for America. They mean that America has been given another chance to rethink its future and what its role should be against the global-terrorist hydra and to arrange its priorities accordingly. The attacks also mean that the global war on terror continues, largely unabated.
The attacks in London mean that America (including an informed American electorate) must realize that a multigenerational approach will be needed to defeat the global terrorism. Thus America's foreign policy must maintain a focus on this transnational threat while resisting the urge to neglect future national threats; it must be able to entertain two thoughts at once!
The attacks mean that America is almost certainly going to be attacked again. When the next "shoe" drops in America, it could easily be far more traumatic than Sept. 11 – it might involve weapons of mass destruction killing many more Americans. It means that Americans ought to take last week's tragedy as badly needed wake-up call lest we all be shocked when the next shoe drops.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolton is an associate professor of political science at California State University San Marcos. He is the author of "U.S. Foreign Policy and International Politics: George W. Bush, 9/11 and the Global-Terrorist Hydra" (N.Y.: Prentice Hall, 2005). As a Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Academic fellow, he recently returned from the Middle East where he studied how democracies can defend themselves against terrorism.
Lando
The USA is thus fighting a two-front war against both al Queda and its ally of convenience, the democrat party.
You are all too correct.
American is currently fighting 3 wars: Afganistan, Iraq and the Liberal Left-Wing Democrats.
I long for the good old days of 1865, when proud, victorious Republicans knew how to deal properly with the eternally treasonous, evil democrats. Note the early version of Babs Boxer swinging on the left side of the gallows.
The people of the USA need to let our government know that we are sick of them playing pussy-foot with Muslims. We all have seen enough. They are people with no respect for human life, and they behave as savages or they support the savages. There is really no line between Muslims, good or bad, and if they get sick enough of it, they will leave Islam and not be a party to this demonic way of life.
It is time to lower the boom.
Now that's a picture that should be distributed thru every office of the MSM as a warning!
It looked like 'Old Crusty' to me.
I do occasionally get annoyed at the earnest insistence that Iraq is some sort of sideshow from the overall WOT. It isn't, anymore than Burma or North Africa was for WWII.
The ROP experiment is done, even if no elected officials are saying so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.