 |
|
When Al Qaida Attacks
In the past few months, several books have emerged, written by "embittered" government officials, that attack the US intelligence community and the Bush White House in condemnation of America's approach to the "war on terrorism." The latest, a book entitled " Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror ," is set for July publication, reportedly written by a "senior US intelligence official" (Julian Borger, www.guardian.co.uk, June 19, 2004).
In an interview with the Guardian, the author argues that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has "played into bin Laden's hands." The author also reaches into the near future to suggest that "Osama bin Laden may attack the US before the November election to ensure the re-election of President George Bush" (Tom Regan, "Book alleges Al Qaeda will attack US to ensure Bush win," www.csmonitor.com, June 21, 2004).
Renewed attacks on US interests prior to November elections have, of course, already been threatened by Al Qaida and the US intelligence community has likewise forewarned of this possibility. The impact of such an attack on the US elections, however, could easily go either way for George Bush.
The Guardian quotes the author of "Imperial Hubris" as saying, "I'm very sure they [al Qaida terrorists] can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now [the Bush administration]. One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."
This inference is made on the assumption that additional US terrorist attacks would renew Bush's image as America's "war president" and rally the people back around Bush's "war on terrorism." This inference of future events, however, is drawn from experience prior to the 9/11 Commission's report and the Bush administration's loss of popular support in the war on terrorism. "Exactly half the country now approves of the way Bush is managing the U.S. war on terrorism, down 13 percentage points since April" (Richard Morin and Dan Balz, "Bush Loses Advantage in War on Terrorism," www.washingtonpost.com, June 22, 2004).
In other words, this inference is based on the assumption that the American people are unable to awaken to the truth beneath Bush's religious Republican follies and failures. Given the increasing public awareness of Bush's failures, it is increasingly likely that the result of renewed Al Qaida attacks on US interests would be just the opposite of what could be anticipated just a few months ago.
If anything, additional terrorist attacks on US interests ought guarantee Bush's ouster in November. Bush's "war on terrorism" is not a war on terrorism at all. It is a war against tribal nations with resources highly prized by America's corporate aristocracy, those beautiful people who net over $4 million in annual compensation (Reuters, May 12, 2004) and think the US government is theirs for a fee. Al Qaida remains as a large, viable network of extremist religious gangs operating in cells around the world, and this existent fact is the direct result of Bush's failed unilateral bombing of tribal nations.
If the US is subject to further Al Qaida attacks this summer, who is Bush going to bomb in retaliation? The world knows that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had more "connections" to Al Qaida than did Iraq. Just who is going to be in trouble next?
-----------------------------
Dr. Gerry Lower lives on the edge of Black Elk Wilderness Area among the granite peaks of the Harney Range, where house cats are actually just good cougar food. He has a website at www.jeffersonseyes.com and he can be reached at tisland@blackhills.com.
-----------------------------
|
|
|
