Ritual Reality

While You Were Out

October 21, 2004

International terrorism is the singlemost critical issue facing America and the world. This is not simply because terrorists kill people indiscriminately and justifying their actions with what almost everyone agrees is the perversion of sacred doctrines. However, the entire world--not just the so-called "Arab Street"--is affected directly by America's ongoing War On Terror. This is true for several reasons, not the least of which is the close connections to America's energy policy and corporate interests, as well as the simple fact that continued aggression by any actor causes reciprocal action. The scope and measure of the Bush administration's response to terrorist attacks on American soil have arguably soured an already terrible situation and the repurcussions have already caused misery for other nations, notably Spain, Turkey, and the Philippines. Therefore, it is crucial to re-examine America's response, to demand that our government redefine its aims and redirect its response.

In our two most recent articles, Cause and Effect and Radical Visions, Ritual Reality attempted to outline the underlying philosophies of America's War on Terror as well as some of the historical roots of modern Islamist terror networks. We content that when American military force was shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, this was in no way based on a reasonable examination of the facts surrounding the 9-11 attacks, nor have members of the administration attemtped to engage the American public with substantive, factual discourse on the true nature of terrorism, let alone the origins and aims of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups. The Bush administration has in essence told the American public that nobody really needs to understand the issue of Islamist terrorism. They use carefully constructed language to acknowledge the unconventional nature of the conflict, with statements such as, "this is a new kind of enemy and a new kind of war," designed to allay public concerns. The underlying assertion is that only the White House understands the problem, only the White House has the expertise to provide a final solution. Meanwhile, the escalating carnage in Iraq is described as the "central front in the war on terrorism," harkening back to the heroic conflicts of the 20th century when our nation's enemies were clearly defined and the casualties exalted as a supreme sacrifice.

Nothing is said about waging another type of campaign, in which America acknowledges the need to reshape its image in the eyes of the world. Ron Suskind's recent article for The New York Times Sunday Magazine provides a striking example of this mindset:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Source...

This is the mentality that lead to the deliberate misleading of the American public and the world into an unnecessary and ill-fated war in Iraq. Within hours of the 9-11 attacks, members of the administration were at pains to link Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 hijackings and to distort and exaggerate any threat Iraq posed to America.

Former national security and counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke describes this mindset in his book Against All Enemies:

From the interactions I did have with Bush it was clear that the critique of him as a dumb, lazy rich kid were somewhat off the mark. When he focused, he asked the kind of questions that revealed results-oriented mind, but he looked for the simple solution, the bumper sticker description of the problem. Once he had that, he could put energy behind a drive to achieve his goal. The problem was that many of the important issues, like terrorism, like Iraq, were laced with important subtlety and nuance. These issues needed analysis and Bush and his inner circle had no real interest in complicated analyses; on the issues that they cared about, they already knew the answers, it was received wisdom.

The administration first invaded Afghanistan with the intent of uprooting the Taliban and destroying the Al Qaeda network. While it was able to achieve a measure of success toward both of those goals, the military was directed to shift key resources and tropps for redeployment to Iraq. Afghanistan is wobbling unsteadily between stability and chaos while the American-appointed government clings to what power and influence it has. The title of Bogey Man has shifted from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein and now to al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist behind much of the insurgent violence directed at the American forces occupying Iraq. Most Americans haven't a clue regarding Al Qaeda's cell-based structure nor any idea of how sleeper agents and cells can operate for years, conducting reconassaince and refining attack plans, with little or no need for a command apparatus. Money is wasted on massive military operations overseas and resentment grows among potential terrorist recruits. This is a zero-sum game with the likely result of increasing risk to Americans, especially those abroad, not to mention citizens of coutnries that support American military actions.

Further, the administration and the GOP in general has succeeded in making the war on terrorism the central issue of the Presidential election. The result is the Democratic party scrambling to cast itself as the War Party and its candidate, John Kerry, saluting the country and "reporting for duty." Kerry continues to assert he won't shirk in the fight against terrorists and that he has a plan to win the the war. The administration counters that a vote for Kerry is virtually an invitation for more attacks, more fear.

But are there alternatives? The first step is to remove George Bush from office and evict the cadre of neocon lunatics that have manipulated the country and the world with fear and intimidation. Then the real challenge begins.

Next week: A few immodest proposals for real change