Lost in these ceaseless accusations as to whether United States government officials dropped the ball before Sept. 11, 2001 is the legitimate debate about how effective the war in Iraq has been in combating global terrorism. Never was this more apparent than during the most recent presidential news conference on Wednesday, April 14, the first such gathering in six months. On several occasions, members of the press baited President Bush to confess mistakes and each time Bush responded by saying, more or less, that the United States was doing God's work.
Inquisitive and philosophical questions about the viability of the Iraq war need to be asked and answered, rather than baseless allegations that this is Bush's Vietnam or priceless insinuations that Bush is the Messiah. Among such questions:
"President Bush, you have exhibited an irrevocable commitment to handing over sovereignty to the Iraqi people on June 30. Besides answering the obvious question: Why such a random date? Can you explain what the role of the U.S. troops stationed in Iraqi will be, if, as it is quite possible, Iraqi police forces are under-equipped, political authority is hotly contested, a sovereign body upon which we can restore authority has yet to materialize, or Iraq erupts in civil war?"
"President Bush, four months ago you led a politically pernicious attack against Howard Dean after he proclaimed that the capturing of Saddam Hussein would not make the U.S. safer. While you cite Libya's decision to disclose its weapons programs as an indication of progress in the war against nuclear proliferation, can you stand here today and say with conviction that our troops are safer with Saddam captured, knowing full well that violence in Iraq has escalated since then?"
Follow up question: "Do you think it's fair to say, as your Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield stated, that the killing of Osama bin Laden previous to 9/11 would not necessarily have prevented the catastrophic events of that day? If yes, then why did you so vehemently attack Dean for his similar comments?"
"President Bush, the overriding theme of this war in Iraq, although once thought to be combating Saddam's non-compliance with international jurisdictions, now is the spreading of democracy throughout a region traditionally hostile to political progressivism. Can you discuss why you believe a region which is split so decisively along lines of religious affiliation and which has almost no history with democratic institutions will all of a sudden accept theories of egalitarianism, religious freedom and political representation? Besides of course, by saying: democratization is God's will."
"President Bush, Mao Zedong once wrote that the goal of guerilla warfare is not to have one person fighting 10, but to have 10 people fighting one. This seems like a fairly logical assessment of the current war on terror. The more numerous side is actively engaging the outnumbered. While this has been effective in reducing the attacks that could have occurred domestically, is this an effective way to eliminate terrorist organizations? Can we fight terrorism without the deployment of so much military might, maybe by empowering allies in the Middle East region or by giving more than a half-hearted commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis? Does suggesting this make me unpatriotic?"
"President Bush, I admire your conviction in combating international terror. It is a problem, as the recent 9/11 commission has shown, that has been long-ignored and under appreciated. Yet I was wondering if you could explain this logic to me: Suicide bombers seem to have little regard for other people, let alone their own, lives. Yet the war on terror seems less about convincing these people to abandon religious fanaticism and anti-Americanism than it is about pre-empting these acts of terror through a demonstration of resolve and the threat of forceful retaliation. Is the threat of death and retribution an effective way to dissuade someone from blowing himself or herself up?"
Granted, in the war on terror and the war in Iraq there will always be more questions than there are answers. Nonetheless, there is no excuse for what has been the relative nonexistence of foreign policy and counter-terrorism debates, an obvious byproduct of the displacement of academics in favor of ideologues (on both sides of the political spectrum). As more troops die in Iraq, and as Bush promises to stay the course, we can only speculate when United States officials will decide to entertain alternate strategies.
