A few weeks ago U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld signed and released the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Report. Rumsfeld opens the report by replacing the old worn out phrase, “the war on terror,” with what he now calls “ the long war.” Like “the war on terror,” “the long war,” suggests that the U.S. faces an elusive and persistent enemy. It reminds me of President Bush’s comment on his responsibility to “rid the world of evil.” There is evil in the world that is lurking around every corner seeking to destroy “our free way of life.” This is the foundational premise behind the foreign policy of the Bush adminstration. It is a premise that frightens the public, especially after the events of 9/11. The next premise of the Bush adminstration’s foreign policy is that in order to defeat those seeking to destroy “our free way of life” is through the use of military force. Therefore, we must use military force against the evil that exists. Indeed, the conclusion follows. However, should we not question the premises of the Bush administration? Is there evil lurking around every corner attempting to destroy our way of life? If so, is the use of violence the most effective way to defeat evil? Or, in President Bush’s terms “rid the world of evil?”
If the people of the United States want their country to be safer, then the conflict that exists between us and the so-called terrorists must be put into perspective. Furthmore, if we really want to resolve this conflict then the process toward humility must begin. In other words, we must begin to look at our role in the conflict, we must be introspective in order to effectively work toward any sort of long lasting resolution. To many this may seem strange, for President Bush has repeatedly framed the conflict as one-sided – “they hate our freedom.” However, Osama bin Laden, one of the only faces on the elusive enemy we face, has given many more reasons for his attack on the U.S. and none of them include hating our freedom. Can a conflict be resolved by not addressing the concerns of the other party? It seems highly unlikely. The lack of concern for trying to understand why 9/11 happened suggests to me that the Bush administration is not concerned with resolving this conflict. The Bush adminstration’s use of military force on the civilians of Afghanistan is no way to resolve a conflict with an enemy that has no face, and with a perceived ideology against the free world. The “war on terror” is, indeed, beginning to look like a “long war,” precisely because we have never addressed the root of the issue – the causes of 9/11. It is the elephant in the room.
Sometimes dreams come true for U.S. neo-conservatives. When a couple of planes crashed into buildings on September 11, 2001, the hopes and dreams of neo-conservatives everywhere were in plain sight: employ unilateral military operations on Iraq. Today, the American people feel frustrated with the state of the Iraq war. People sense deception and corruption as top officials of the Adminstration are indicted for secrets and crimes. As a result, people grow more and more wary of the Bush adminstrations reasons for going to war in Iraq and the reasons given for staying there. Why has the media been so slow to tell the truth about the neo-conservative agenda? Why has the media been reluctant to talk about the explicit references and plans drawn to invade Iraq in documents written pre-911? The good news is that the media does not have to tell you about the neo-conservative agenda and the hijacking of the devastating attacks on September 11, for they in fact, are willing to tell you themselves.
Go to “The Project for the New American Century” – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Bolton, Wolfiwitz – the whole crew.