by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 11, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

ix-years after Sept. 11, Osama bin Laden remains free to broadcast more propaganda videos inviting his Islamic brothers to join a “caravan of martyrs" to attack the United States. When attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon stunned the nation in 2001, President George W. Bush promised no distinction between terrorists and the sovereign nations that harbor them. Less that one month after Sept. 11, Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom, toppling the Taliban and driving Osama bin Laden into hiding. More than six years later, the mastermind of Sept. 11 directs, plans, funds and executes terror, wreaking havoc on the Western world. He's not, as newly minted Republican presidential candidate former Sen. Fred Thomson (R-Tenn.) said, largely “symbolism.” While the U.S. hasn't been attacked since Sept. 11, Europe has been hit in Madrid '04 and London '05.

      Four-star Gen. and Iraq Commander David H. Petraeus told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday that neutralizing Al Qaida remains one of Iraq's most pressing challenges, blaming Bin Laden for causing most of Iraq's sectarian strife. When coalition forces killed Iraq's al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi June 8, 2006, the White House expected a precipitous drop in violence. Since Zarqawi's death, the violence worsened, leading to the highest U.S. casualties since the war began March 20, 2003. Petraeus presented many charts and graphs but omitted data about U.S. deaths, demonstrating a steady rise in mortality rates since the troop surge began in Feb. 2007. No matter how you explain it, more U.S. deaths show that whatever the benefits, Bush's troop surge hasn't helped the military. Petraeus talks about “progress” but offers no estimate on prognosis.

      Bush's homeland security advisor Frances Fragos Townsend called Bin Laden “virtually impotent,” echoing the views of Thomson, denying reality that al-Qaida is stronger and more operationally sound than it was at the time of Sept. 11. Getting Bin Laden “dead-or-alive” should be the highest priority of the U.S. military, not rebuilding Iraq. Allowing Bin Laden to run amok in Pakistan counters his policy of going after nations harboring terrorists. Bush promised he would never use the military for nation-building, causing unending deaths and hemorrhage to the national treasury. Petreaus had an easier time in the House than the Senate, where Republicans facing tough reelection battles showed more opposition to the war. What partisans don't get is that the U.S. must carefully weigh its commitments in Iraq or almost certainly face more terror attacks in the U.S. or elsewhere.

      Petraeus and Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker asked for more time while U.S. soldiers continue to die. Republicans haven't faced the very real possibility that Iraq's current government cannot deliver the changes needed to support the blood and treasure paid by the U.S. military. “Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we're doing now? For what?” asked soon-to-be retiring Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), skeptical that Bush's troop surge was having much effect. Raising the most crucial question, Sen. John Warner (R-Vi.) asked Petraeus whether the Iraq War makes the country safer. “Sir, I don't know, actually,” responded Petraeus, saying he was focused on the Iraq theater. Warner's question goes to the heart of whether the Iraq War was needed to protect U.S. national security. If not, then what's the point of continuing?

      Bush's national security team, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Defesne Secretary Robert Gates repeatedly stress that if we don't fight al-Qaida in Iraq will have to fight them on American streets. In reality, with or without Iraq, we'll have to fight them eventually on U.S. soil if Bin Laden continues to operate in Pakistan's ungoverned tribal lands bordering Afghanistan. Petraeus can't see or discuss on the record the bigger picture concerning U.S. national security. He's can't say for sure whether the Iraq War helps or hurts U.S. security. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a presidential candidate and supporter of Bush's war policies, raised the certainty of failure if the U.S. “surrenders” and withdraws troops. Bush expects to announce Petraeus' recommended troop withdrawals in a primetime address Sept. 13.

      When coalition forces found no weapons of mass destruction before Baghdad fell April 9, 2003, the U.S. mission in Iraq should have concluded. Six years later, the U.S.is embroiled in the most costly national-building venture since World War II. Petraeus and Crocker asked for more time to help Iraq's security without any realistic hope of success. Neither Petraeus nor Crocker have the perspective to know whether Iraq helps or hurts the global war on terror. With al-Qaida's attacks on the rise, it's clear that the U.S. must do more to deal with Osama bin Laden. Petraeus sounded optimist about radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's order to call-off his 10,000-plus al-Mahdi army. While agreeing to suspend attacks, al-Sadr urged Petraeus to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. Without the necessity of national security, the U.S. has no business sacrificing more blood and treasure.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.