Losing the war?
Tom Daschle made a statement two weeks ago that said much about his failure to grasp the War on Terrorism, and yet drew hysterical reactions from the media and even the White House. Daschle was speaking out while homeland security legislation was under discussion, and just after the audiotape that was purported to have the voice of Osama Bin Laden.
I’m troubled that we haven’t found bin Laden in all this time. Frankly, I think that it really caused many of us to be concerned about whether or not we are winning the war on terror.’
(*) At the time, government experts had found the tape to be genuine, despite the voice having a different timbre compared to the voice in previous Bin Laden tapes. Now, the Dalle Molle Institute of Perceptual Artificial Intelligence of Switzerland has announced that they believe the new tape is a fake. (†) If it is a fake, there is no evidence that Bin Laden still lives. This revelation is no surprise to the readers of Jay Reding, who has convincingly argued that Bin Laden is indeed dead. (‡) (§) Jay has one of the sharpest web logs out there, both presentationally and intellectually. (**) I read it regularly.
With the new report, the audiotape’s authenticity is indeed questionable at best. This significantly undermines Daschle’s argument that the US is losing the war. Even if Bin Laden were alive, however, Daschle would have a poor argument. Osama Bin Laden being alive would not mean the US is losing the war on terrorism. Hitler was alive up until the last days of World War II, for example. Bin Laden is the biggest target in the war, but not the only one.
Tom Daschle’s statement that the US might not be winning the War on Terrorism was not well-founded on evidence. It was not, however, an unpatriotic or even uncommon sentiment. In an ABC News poll last October 7, only 47% of Americans said the US is winning the war. (††)
The Bush Administration’s response to Tom Daschle’s statement was anything but measured, however. It may even have qualified as Machiavellian. President Bush’s initial statement after the tape surfaced was very reasonable. As USA Today reported:
Bush himself told reporters, “We’ll take the warning very seriously,” even before knowing for sure whether bin Laden made the tape.
He said the tape proved that “there is an active enemy that continues to hate, that is willing to use murder as a way to achieve their goals.”
(‡‡) This is exactly the right approach. The tape shows that someone out there, Bin Laden or someone else, wants to commit terrorist acts just as Osama Bin Laden has done. The tape must be taken seriously as a threat, regardless of its authenticity. It is not good evidence on the overall success of the war, however.
President Bush’s reasonableness was not matched by others in his administration, at least not after Tom Daschle made his statement. A day after Daschle’s statement, Bush Administration officials and right-wing media outlets flooded the airwaves with new warnings about terrorist attacks. Was it merely a coincidence that these new warnings occurred in the wake of Daschle’s dissent? Newsday reported this bit of intrigue:
Intelligence and law enforcement officials in the United States and Europe are bracing for major al-Qaida terrorist attacks between now and the new year, authorities said Friday.
“Our message is be afraid, be very afraid,” said a normally dispassionate senior Bush administration official who reviewed recent CIA terrorism warnings. “There is very good reason to be alert now.”
That assessment follows the stark language in a bulletin posted by the FBI on its Web site Friday that warns that al-Qaida terrorists may be planning “spectacular attacks” in the United States aimed at mass casualties and economic disruption.
And it highlights the growing concerns expressed in recent weeks by political, intelligence and law enforcement figures in Europe, most notably in Britain, France and Germany, all key U.S. allies.
(§§) (emphasis added) “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” Nevertheless, the Homeland Security Threat Level did not change from the middle, yellow level: “elevated.” (***) (†††) Yes, recently, terrorists did attack Israelis in Kenya. (‡‡‡) New terrorist strikes could hit the USA at any time, too, but the fact remains that the Threat Level has not been raised.
If these warnings were genuine, the Threat Level should have been raised. Without raising the Threat Level, it’s not worthwhile taking the new warnings seriously. I have yet to hear a good argument that the Threat Level should not have raised, but the warnings were still genuine. This discrepancy cannot merely be a case of the FBI and CIA engaging in a CYA effort, as the New York Times editorialized about. (§§§) If it were purely CYA, the warnings would have been issued after the new tape surfaced and before Daschle spoke.
The sudden, new torrent of warnings appeared, curiously enough, right after Daschle’s statement. The warnings provide a small impetus to Daschle’s argument. If there is still a need to warn, that means we have not yet achieved absolute victory. The actual impact of the warnings was, however, to deter continued high-level questions of the record of the Bush Administration in conducting the War on Terrorism.
We don’t have all the answers yet. There is good reason to suspect, however, that the Bush Administration was engaging in pure Machiavellian politics when it unnecessarily frightened the American public with fresh warnings without actually raising the official Threat Level. One thing is beyond doubt. Today, Daschle and other high-profile Democratic leaders are not publicly questioning the success of the War on Terrorism.