Home >> United States & Canada >> Foreign Policy & Military

     Email   Print 

Bush's Speech Sounds Too Partisan

Antonio Fabrizio - 9/17/2006

On the fifth anniversary of 9/11 attacks, American citizens commemorated the victims of the tragedy that "changed the world" and people worldwide expressed their solidarity to the victims' families. Bush's speech, however, was highly criticized, both at homeland and abroad, since it sounded too "partisan" - with close midterm elections taking place in November, to vote for the new American Congress – in a moment when partisanship should, instead, be left aside.

US president honored the victims of September 11. He did remember that five years ago, a group of fanatical terrorists hijacked some airplanes flying over the US and broke down the WTC in New York - a symbol of the US economic and cultural power in the world. Thousands of lives were lost, and millions of incredulous, shocked people from all over the planet saw the attack and the fall of the gigantic Twin Towers.

Yet Bush, in his speech, also defended the way his administration had reacted five years before, declaring war to terrorists and shaping a doctrine of "preventive war", aimed at stopping other attacks over the American soil. He asserted that now America is safer – what would be proven by the fact that terrorists haven't been able to place other attacks on the American soil – but not completely safe yet, as recently discovered in UK, where groups of extremists were discovered attempting to fly to the US.

Then Bush expressed his belief that America has now learned a lot about the enemy, including the fact that if they could get weapons of mass destruction, they would use them against the US. Bush affirmed that America didn't ask for this war, but it has become vital to win it now. Then, directly speaking to Bin Laden, Bush said that America will bring him to justice.

The central part of Bush's speech, however, focused on the Iraq issue. The US president acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the September 11 attacks, but insisted that the regime of Saddam was a threat in itself. Bush, therefore, defended his choice to start a war against Iraq, and said America will not leave until a democracy is set up in that country.

American Democrats, and Bush's critics in general, have criticized his words. Many have said that Bush's speech was "instrumental" to the November elections, as did Senator Harry Reid. In fact, one of the most relevant issues during the electoral campaign has been Iraq, and the need to withdraw/not withdraw US troops from a war which is becoming more and more unpopular among American voters. Simply said (but with many notable exceptions), Democrats support withdrawal, Republicans oppose it.

Few years ago, most Americans supported Bush's vision and believed Iraq constituted a threat to America; they were too scared about terrorists' threats and Bush's strategy seemed to suggest that overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime would have made America safer. Three years later, however, it has been found out that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, nor was planning to have any.

He was certainly a criminal, a fierce dictator, who deserved to be brought to justice and pay for his crimes. Yet the war, three years later, is not over yet, and is killing many innocent lives, more than 40,000 Iraqi civilians according to the official statistics, more than 100,000 for some humanitarian organizations - whereas the declared purpose of Bush's war was to free the Iraqi people.

What makes things even worse for Bush, is that many American soldiers are dying, and therefore he is losing support from those who once believed his theory was the right solution. At present only a minority, according to recent polls, still backs Bush's strategy in Iraq.

Combining the emotional impact of 9/11 commemorations with the need to stay and fight in Iraq may actually have been a good move to try and regain some support. It may move American votes towards Republicans. That is why Democrats reacted to the president's speech.

Bush's critics also questioned another important point: is the world really safer now, as the president claimed? It does not seem so: it seems instead, that Taliban groups are resurging in Afghanistan, and that the terrorist network of Al Qaeda, which had been left out of Iraq before 2003, has now an operational base in that country too. In this sense, then, Al Qaeda has been even empowered; it has become, as the BBC correctly defined it, a "franchise" that inspires small groups of people, who get in touch through the Internet and plan their attacks in places like hotbeds of war, where they can target American people.

To defend his view, Bush declared that US troops will not leave Iraq until a democracy is set. Yet he didn't admit he had made a mistake, when, three years ago, he had insisted that Saddam's regime was building weapons of mass destruction. Such an admission, in fact, would be as declaring that a "preventive war" doctrine is a wrong solution, but he is clearly and deeply convinced that the best way to defend American interests and guarantee American safety is by "attacking before being attacked". What is, instead, an impracticable – and to many people, unacceptable – theory, which will probably end up with the conclusion of Bush's presidency in 2008, or even before, if November elections produce copious changes in the American Congress.

The inadequacy of a "preventive war theory" is that such a strategy would put countries in state of semi-permanent war, and undoubtedly it cannot be accepted by citizens over the long term. Therefore, diplomacy remains the privileged way to follow and all leaders, including Bush, should go through it and trough international organizations, such as the UN, to establish or change relations with other countries.

A final consideration on Bin Laden. Bush spoke directly to him on his speech, saying that no matter how long it would take, the "sheik of terror" would have been captured and brought to justice. This is a meaningful point because, although it is fundamental that criminals must pay for their terrible crimes, focusing only on them may be a useless dissipation of vital sources. After all, Bin Laden has been neutralized because, being the most wanted man in the world, he is constantly hiding himself and does not represent a threat. Instead, those vital energies could be spent to secure unsafe places, such as some volatile areas in Iraq and Afghanistan, and help with reconstruction.