By Brigitte L. Nacos
New York Times columnist Thomas
Friedman writes today that by sticking to his policy and staying the course
on Iraq, “George W. Bush delivered his farewell address on Thursday evening — handing
the baton, and probably the next election, to the Democrats.” He mentions David
Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, who has said, “In one
fell swoop George Bush abdicated to [General] Petraeus, [Iraq’s Prime
Minister] Maliki and the Democrats. Bush left it to Petraeus to handle the war,
Maliki to handle our timetable and therefore our checkbook, and the Democrats
to ultimately figure out how to end this.” With respect to making the Iraq War
Petraeus’s war, retired General Wesley
Clark writes perceptively, “shame on political leaders who would hide
behind their top generals. It was hard not to catch a whiff of that during last
week's hearings. The Constitution, however, is not ambivalent about where the
responsibility for command lies -- the president is the commander in chief.” But
it is with respect to “handing the
baton” to the Democrats that Friedman raises the most interesting questions: “While
Mr. Bush’s tacit resignation last week greatly increases the odds of a
Democratic victory in 2008, there are several wild cards that could change
things: a miraculous turnaround in Iraq (unlikely, but you can always hope), a
terrorist attack in America, a coup in Pakistan that puts loose nukes in the
hands of Islamist radicals, or a recession induced by the meltdown in the U.S.
mortgage market, which as forces a stark choice between bailing out Baghdad or
Chicago.”
Mr. Friedman’s inclusion of “a terrorist attack in America” in his list of events or developments likely to decrease the odds of Democrats winning the White House next year is not far-fetched. After all, since the 444-day long Iran Hostage Crisis (1970-81) Republicans have managed to convince the majority of Americans most of the time that Democrats are soft on terrorism and defense. The current occupants of the White House, especially Vice-President Cheney and his advisers, and their ideological brethrens in the Congress and elsewhere have been tireless in magnifying this perception—regardless of reality that the more and more lethal incidents of terrorism against U.S. targets occurred under Republican presidents.
So, what has been done to fight terrorism and reduce the threat of terrorism in the homeland since 9/11 by a Republican president and, for most of the time, a Republican majority in Congress? Not even the President’s new Iraq decider, General David Petraeus, could give an affirmative answer, when asked during one of his appearances in Congress whether the U.S. engagement in Iraq has made our country safer. He said, “I don’t know actually.” But Michael Scheuer, who served in the CIA for more than 20 years, was the chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit in the late 1990s, and is critical of Democratic and Republican decision-makers in Washington alike, is very sure. He wrote in time for the sixth 9/11 anniversary, “On balance, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are more threatening today than on 9/11. As the July National Intelligence Estimate reported, the core of Al Qaeda is rebuilt, aiding Iraqi and Afghan insurgents, and preparing attacks in the United States… So on this 9/11, we must accept this sad and infuriating reality: Bin Laden is winning. He has defied us, attacked us, eluded us and inspired new threats we cannot begin to enumerate.”
If Scheuer is right, and I think he is in his threat assessment, Friedman’s inclusion of another terrorist attack inside the U.S. among the wild cards that could influence the outcome of the 2008 elections is well taken and, in fact, a legitimate topic for public discourse.
Comments