[I wrote this on the airplane and have only made a few minor edits.]
George Bush has been catching a lot of flak lately. I find that whenever one makes sweeping generalizations, it is best to back it up with a personal anecdote. At my last JHU College Republicans meeting, before the president of our club had showed up, one of the high-ranking members posed this question: “Does W suck?” The general consensus seemed to be a reluctant (or perhaps not-so-reluctant) “yes.” Mind you, this is the core of the College Republicans. I don’t think we’re alone, or else Bush wouldn’t be enjoying a 37% approval rating. After a lackluster State of the Union address, Republicans seem to be disillusioned.
I wouldn’t be saying this if I wasn’t experiencing some level of disillusionment myself. I’m disappointed with the situation in Iraq. I’m disappointed with the situation with Iran. And I’ll throw in North Korea too, just to round out the Axis of Evil. I’m disappointed with Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. I’m disappointed with the wiretapping. Yep, folks, I’m disappointed overall with how the War on Terror is going.
Yet, let us take a closer look at this War on Terror. It is come to my attention that there are some problems in defining this war. We’ve got Glenn Reynolds, celebrated right-wing blogger, saying on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show: “Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military conflict.” I must strongly disagree. I hate to play the 9/11 card and play off emotions, but it is necessary. I hardly think 3000 dead constitutes some kind of mirage of violent conflict.
See that? That’s not some disguise. That’s an attack on the American people. As I’ve said before, 9/11 was an overt act of war. It’s disappointing that a lot of people don’t understand that. John Kerry, the former presidential candidate, wanted to turn this war into a law enforcement issue. You fight a war with soldiers, not policemen. You’re not going to destroy any terrorist camps that way. Thomas Friedman implores that we not let 9/11 define us. Should we have cried, “We will not let Pearl Harbor define us?” Wait, before you cry “false dichotomy,” hear me out. The point I want to make is that we’ll never win this war by playing defense, by trivializing this conflict, or ignoring it. We need to get off our asses and fight. Ladies and gentlemen, the barbarians have sacked Rome, and we seem content to fiddle with our remote controls while the nation burns.
There’s only one person in power who seems to realize that we’re at war: George W. Bush. That’s why we reelected him in 2004. Despite the flaws and disappointments, he’s the only one who realizes that 9/11 did change everything. One can rightfully make a case that he has gone too far in some instances, in extending presidential power, but I say better too much than too little. Some may argue with my reasoning. They may say, “Yes, Bush recognizes that there is a war, but he’s gone about it wrong. He may have the best intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Yes, it is true that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. However: Apathy Avenue is a quicker road to hell than Good Intentions Way. Good Intentions may lead us to hell, but it is a circuitous route, and we have many opportunities to right ourselves. In the grips of apathy, there is no destination but Self-Destruction.
In fact, let me state in plain terms what has been said earlier: I agree that George W. Bush has extended his executive powers too far. Thus, I wish Congress would grow a backbone and curtail these abuses of power. As a conservative who distrusts big government of all type, and as a liberal, in the classic sense, who wishes to guard against tyranny, I think this is of the utmost importance. However, Congress must do so in a responsible manner. The problem is that I don’t trust Congress to do so. I don’t think Congress recognizes that we’re at war. I don’t think Congress recognizes that whether it should have happened or not, Iraq is a front in the War on Terror. If we lose in Iraq, that will cause more to flock to Osama’s cause than 10 Abu Ghraib’s could cause.
I don’t trust Congress to fight the War on Terror; I trust George W. Bush. Even though he’s made some errors, at least he knows that there’s a war going on. Everyone else seems content to think that 9/11 never happened. I believe this quote from Bush is apt: “Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons.” George Bush also made the right and just decision to invade Afghanistan. I wonder if any Democrat would have done so. I wonder if certain Republicans would have done so. That’s why I still support our president.
I will continue to criticize him, but make no mistake, I still support him. If you are a wavering Republican, I urge you to reconsider your stance regarding Bush. If you are a Democrat who voted for him in 2004, I urge you to think of why you voted for him in the first place.
Very well put, as usual, Shawn.
It is indeed the right thing for America to have a leader who understands the reality of the country at war. And in President Bush we DO have a president who knows that. But here’s the thing: he is failing to prosecute the war successfully. The president desperately needs to reorganize the military leadership to take this fundamental fact into account. He has stuck with Secretary Rumsfeld for too long; Rumsfeld’s obstinacy on the correctness of his strategic vision and methods has become a terrifying liability. There HAS to be accountability on the military front, and the post-invasion failure of the Pentagon has been allowed to go unaccounted-for, to a dangerous extent. As such, we are now clearly in danger of reprising the result in Vietnam.
Secondly, President Bush needs to do a better job at convincing the American public about the fact that along with this being a typical shooting war, it is also–perhaps even more so–a war of ideas and ideology… a war of civilizations, basically. (Only the most recent example: it is galling to see that, after we’ve supposedly ‘liberated’ Afghanistan, they’ve reverted to Taliban-like behavior, in which a Muslim convert to Christianity faces execution.)
I think Bush grasps and believes the Manichaean nature of this struggle well enough; he just hasn’t sold the idea to the American public as well as he should. And this serious responsibility is no one else’s, other than the President’s. Any citizen or elected official can declaim this truth with great eloquence and conviction, but when the President speaks to it–even if it’s in a voice that’s halting and stumbling, but one that resonates with genuine belief–it carries the weight of history itself. It carries the imprimatur of a whole nation’s actions.
President Bush deserves the support of thoughtful citizens such as yourself, and even from a non-citizen like myself, who aligns himself with no political party.
But if the president takes no drastic steps to recalibrate the country’s current actions with regards to Iraq and the Middle East, I would hazard the easy guess that history will not look on him kindly.
I’ll keep this brief since I don’t have much time to respond:
I agree, we are at war. I disagree that the war we are involved in has anything to do with a particular country. Osama is the leader of al Qaeda, which is distinctly known as a terrorist organization without borders. Read the Richard Clarke – Condoleezza Rice memo if you don’t believe me. The most obvious country to have invaded would have been Afghanistan, since they are known for their terrorist camps and previously harbored Bin Laden, though who knows where he is today.
Don’t mistake anger with the current war for apathy regarding 9/11 – everyone was mad about that event. I don’t take issue with the statement that ‘we are at war’. I only take issue with how Bush has led us blindly into conflict with the international community, and then pulled a ‘bait and switch’ maneuver on his motive for invading Iraq – at first, to find WMDs, then suddenly when we find none, to free the people.
I don’t think Bush deserves support for the leadership decisions he has made in the past few years, and I think the only reason Bush won the last election was because there wasn’t a strong democratic candidate that looked like he actually cared about anyone below his income bracket. I’d say that we didn’t have any good choices in that election anyhow – most of the discussion surrounding it was based mostly on a ‘lesser of two evils’ sentiment.
David, you say: “I think the only reason Bush won the last election was because there wasn’t a strong democratic candidate that looked like he actually cared about anyone below his income bracket. I’d say that we didn’t have any good choices in that election anyhow – most of the discussion surrounding it was based mostly on a ‘lesser of two evils’ sentiment.”
My sentiments for supporting Bush are still based on the lesser of evils argument. In my entry, my arguments essentially said Bush is still our best bet for the war on terror despite his bumbling because there are no prominent leaders who seem to understand that we are at war. You said there wasn’t a strong Democratic candidate. There still isn’t a strong Democratic candidate out there who understands the war on terror. (However, my mind is still open for Warner.)
Yet, if civil war has indeed broken out in Iraq, all this is moot. My support, although not mentioned in the entry, was predicated on the fact that there was still hope in Iraq as long as we stuck it out. I was encouraged by American progress in Mosul.
Basically, you could sum up my argument as “Stick by Bush because he’s the only one who knows that there’s a war out there to be won.” But if we suffer a major defeat… Well then, there goes my support.