Bush Promotes Al Qaeda as Most Formidable Enemy in Iraq

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Osama bin Laden and his right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri could not have paid for a better promotional coup than the one they landed the other day—free of charge, when President Bush characterized the war in Iraq as a fight between the United States and Al Qaeda. “Hear the words of Osama bin Laden,” Bush said in his commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He told his audience that bin Laden had proclaimed that this “war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.” And he insisted that therefore victory in Iraq is vital in the war against terrorism. It might well be, as Michael Abramowitz of the Washington Post suggests, that “Bush's speech was part of a White House effort in recent weeks to portray the violence in Iraq as primarily a function of al-Qaeda, deemphasizing the internal divisions within Iraq in the apparent hope of regaining political support for an endeavor that has become deeply unpopular with the U.S. public.” While it is far from certain that a president with the low approval rating of George W. Bush can influence public opinion, there is no doubt that bin Laden and his supporters welcome the president’s description of Al Qaeda as a formidable enemy in Iraq that inflicts day-in and day-out enormous pain on the superpower U.S.A. A day before the president’s speech, Presidential contender John Edwards attacked the administration’s war on terrorism as “a bumper sticker” and “a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe.” He has a point in that the so-called war on terrorism slogan is a sound bite that has been used to justify all kinds of policies without making the hunt for the real culprits of the 9/11 attacks the centerpiece of the U.S. response to terrorism.

There is no doubt that the terrorist threat is real and that bin Laden and like-minded people plan to strike Americans and America again. These intentions were alive and well before the Iraq war began. And they would not disappear, if the Iraq war would end tomorrow or in six months with an American victory—whatever that means for those who talk about succeeding and winning there. The fact is that sectarian violence is the greatest problem.

To be sure, in the four years since the invasion of Iraq, the occupied country has not only attracted a number of terrorists but, more important, produced horrific images of Iraqis killed and maimed either by coalition forces or by indigenous warring factions. Used as propaganda material by Al Qaeda and like-minded groups, these images of human suffering radicalized outraged Muslims inside and outside the immediate region and recruited too many of them into the terrorist cause. 

Unless there is clear evidence of state sponsorship—as it was the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan--, terrorism cannot be defeated in conventional wars but must be fought in many different ways. Of course, the number one target after 9/11 was bin Laden—or should have been bin Laden. But once the Al Qaeda boss managed to flee from his headquarters in Afghanistan, Washington concentrated on preparing the Iraq war. Incredibly, as the sixth anniversary of 9/11 nears, bin Laden is alive and well—although not the most formidable enemy in Iraq that the president described this week.

Comments

[Brigitte]

Tony, you have a good point--but, unfortunately, we political scientists stick too often to the standard terms. When an officials has only 30% or so favorable ratings, the headline should signal rising disapproval, or public overwhelmingly disapproves... This is particularly important with respect to headlines since many readers do not read articles fully--or not at all--but remember the headlines.
Again, point well taken.

[Tony]

Brigitte, may I suggest that it is time to retire the phrase "low approval rating," or the use of "approval" at all, in favor of "high DISapproval rating" which is more to the point, and which more accurately represents the majority sentiment in the US.
Readers fix on "approval" as a positive, without necessarily questioning just how low the rating really is.
"Seventy-six percent (76%) disapprove of the US progress in the Iraq War" packs more punch, doesn't it, and isn't that the media's intent? Thank you.