This month, President George W. Bush delivered a series of speeches designed to galvanize the American public to remain steadfast in the war on terror. His efforts culminated with a speech on the five-year anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, reiterating his assertion that the war in Iraq is a major battlefield on the War on Terror.
Democrats immediately countered the speech by proclaiming that Bush had used the tragic anniversary to forward his own political agenda. To me, it seems as though the speech simply retraced policy points that really haven’t changed much since that fateful day five years ago. The president’s stone-wall approach to the War on Terror has resulted in him being admired by some and despised by others, and yet he marches on, still “fighting the good fight.”
I have no doubt that the president deeply desires to see a democratic and free Iraq, as do we all. He seeks a nation that is free of terrorism and violence, and intends to do everything within his power to see it through. But intentions and results are two entirely separate matters. Though we may fight this war for the sake of our own national security with justice and liberty on our side, are we really any safer than we were before it started? As the months drag on and the death toll in Iraq rises, can we say that the threat of terror is diminished?
Even if your answers to the previous questions are yes, there are still plenty of other nations in the world with authoritarian rule that could be potential safe havens for terrorists. Shall we systematically invade them all to ensure that people across the world have access to democracy and that the terrorists have nowhere to run? The United States military cannot be deployed indefinitely. When do we proclaim “Mission Accomplished” in our overt war on terror, if ever? How can we tell if sending our troops to war is having any effect on our national security at all, besides the word of the president?
These unanswered questions have left me wondering if there might be a better way to fight the War on Terror than to chase the terrorists to the ends of the earth. This administration’s seeming inability to keep its platform flexible or even consider alternative solutions is its greatest weakness. And, like it or not, they might just find themselves making a few concessions from their hard-line policies once the mid-term elections come around.
Editor’s Note: “The Elephant’s Peanut Gallery” and “Straight from the Ass’s Mouth” run biweekly and are opinion columns granted by the Editorial Board to the College Republicans and the College Democrats.
