Some odds and ends . . . .
Bounding the Global War on Terrorism
The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration’s postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war’s political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism–as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda–lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power.
By coincidence (or else the producer of To the Point reads metaFilter), the author of the report was on the radio today. He suggests that the Iraq campaign has not made the nation any safer and could make it less safe by diverting resources away from homeland security.
Then I found this piece on the Bush Dynasty, how four generations of the family have ties to the oil-rich families of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and how national policy may be formulated more in support of those interests than anything to do with a coherent national policy.
When the U.S. launched a second war against Iraq in 2003 but failed to find weapons of mass destruction that Hussein was purported to have, international polls, especially those by the Washington-based Pew Center, charted a massive growth in anti-Bush and anti-American sentiment in Muslim parts of the world — an obvious boon to terrorist recruitment. Even before the war, some cynics had argued that Iraq was targeted to divert attention from the administration’s failure to catch Osama bin Laden and stop Al Qaeda terrorism.
Bolder critics hinted that George W. Bush had sought to shift attention away from how his family’s ties to the Bin Ladens and to rogue elements in the Middle East had crippled U.S. investigations in the months leading up to 9/11. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) complained that even when Congress released the mid-2003 intelligence reports on the origins of the 9/11 attack, the Bush administration heavily redacted a 28-page section dealing with the Saudis and other foreign governments, leading him to conclude, “There seems to be a systematic strategy of coddling and cover-up when it comes to the Saudis.”
There is no evidence to suggest that the events of Sept. 11 could have been prevented or discovered ahead of time had someone other than a Bush been president. But there is certainly enough to suggest that the Bush dynasty’s many decades of entanglement and money-hunting in the Middle East have created a major conflict of interest that deserves to be part of the 2004 political debate. No previous presidency has had anything remotely similar. Not one.
I don’t feel any safer: even if these are unrelated items, it’s an ugly mess. And if they are related, what then?
[Posted with ecto]