America has not been attacked from inside our border since 9/11/2001, as far as we know. Say what you will about the competency of President Bush, or the Machievelli-ness of Cheney, the mere fact that we have not seen a terrorist attack inside the United States for the last six years should give us a reason to give thanks to our government. The Presidents phrase of fighting the terrorists "over there" so we don't have to fight them "over here" would seem to be a great truth. Perhaps the 650 billion dollars spent towards the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the blood we have spent, has been worth it, in order to preserve our way of life? Perhaps. BUT, there are a few things that simply do not add up.
1) Border Security - We've been having a vigorous immigration debate since 2001, due in large part to the idea that terrorists could simply walk across the border anytime they wanted. Is our current security effective, or are immigrants from Canada and Mexico still able to cross over without much problem? The President has pledged billions of dollars over the years to enhance border security, but has this led to more guards, or better technology?
The bi-partisan 9/11 Commission found our overall border security poor, and in some cases "shocking", four years after the attacks. The most shocking part was the "lack of urgency" expressed by the Bush Administration or the Congress to improve security. I suggest everyone read the report, it is shocking. But this lack of urgency towards border security is confusing when we match it up with the amount of homeland attacks, i.e., zero. If the horse thieves are outside the barn, and yet the barn door is unlocked and unguarded, why are the horses still in the barn? Could it be that the horse thieves are not outside the barn? But then, where are they? This question leads to the second thing that does not add up:
2) Is Al-Qaeda, and their affiliate organizations, only in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or the "We Need to Fight Them Over There, So We Don't Have To Fight Them Over Here" argument. This would make sense, and would answer why we have had relative peace in the states during our two wars over seas. But the most recent National Intelligence Estimate tells us that Al-Qaeda is growing stronger, in recruiting and finance, due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the NIE released recently also tells us that the main reason we have not been attacked is due to a "worldwide" counter terrorism effort, that has made the US Shores less available. This "worldwide" effort has disrupted several plans of al-Qaeda, according to the estimate. So, while al-Qaeda is worldwide, we have made the US homeland less of a target.
There is much to be critical about regarding the land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in regards to the war on terror, the Bush Administration seems to be kicking ass. But the NIE also tells us that the Iraq War is breeding new recruits for al-Qaeda, and other organizations like them, by our efforts on the ground in this war. So while we are cutting off the heads of the beast, two or three more heads grow to replace the one we just cut off.
We're winning the war, but can we win it for good. Bush and Co. believe that we can, but that we must stay in Iraq for an undetermined amount of time (Patraeus says 9 years). The rub of course is that our presence in Iraq is the reason for the upsurge in recruitment and funding to al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while adopting the name, isn't affiliated with bin Laden's group. In fact, al-Qaeda is not a monolithic organization with a traditional hierarchy, but a hodge podge of factions with different goals, but all intent on fighting western culture. Yes, the one thing that unites the extremists around the world is their hate of American culture, which they veiw as a threat to Islam. It's not a threat to Islam (we have 12 million Muslims in the U.S. right now, that are living their lives without threat from Americana), but a threat to extremist Islam. I would contend that extremist Christians feel the same way about Americana, which is why Fallwell and Roberts blamed 9/11 on "secularists and homosexuals".
As I have posted before, I do not believe we can win the war in Iraq militarily, or we already would have done so, but we have to use diplomacy in a more strategic way. The Bush Admin and the rest of the neo-cons seem to think that the only leverage we have is our dominant military, and so they use the threat of military force above all other things. America is much more than a powerful military, we are the world's foremost economic force as well, and most importantly, we are the the most giving of countries. We give more to help those in need around the world than anyone else. Economy and charity should be used to greater advantage in our talks with Iran, and our dealings with al-Qaeda. How exactly, I don't know, but relying solely on bombs and blood is not doing the job. Hopefully we can pose this type of question to our current presidential hopefuls in the coming months, and hopefully our next President will be able to use American innovation and utilize all our assets, not just one.
