The GWOT and the Election

Since the withdrawal of Rudy Guiliani from the 2008 presidential sweepstakes, the global war on terror (GWOT) has all but disappeared from the rhetoric surrounding the 2008 presidential campaign. Certainly, both Obama and McCain have assured us that the war continues, that it must be pursued diligently (Obama by getting out of Iraq, McCain by staying in), and that each is the best person to assure diligence and “victory.” These pronouncements have certainly been neither central nor staple to the general appeals the candidates have made to justify their election. 

All this has occurred amidst sporadic reports indicating that the principal terorist opponent of the United States, Al Qaeda, has fallen upon hard times. A large part of the leadership (at least below the very top of the organization) has been captured or killed, and there are even indications that the appeal of bin Laden and his merrt band of crazies may be decreasing. A recent newscast, for instance, featured interviews with several Islamic young men, once the prime recruiting ground of Al Qaeda, where they suggested they disapproved of Al Qaeda’s practice of murdering innocent women and children on Quranic grounds. Quite a revelation.

So what is happening here? What is the state of the GWOT? I offer four possible, if heretical, explanations. Choose one if you want!

1. The GWOT is essentially over, and the United States has won. There have, after all, been no post-9/11 attacks against American soil, most of Al Qaeda’s leaders are incarcerated or dead, their money is dwindling, and they are basically trapped in the caves along the Afghan-Pakistani border. At any rate, they no longer have the resources to pose a direct threat, and what’s left of the GWOT is a mopping up exercise.

2. The GWOT is essentially over, and Al  Qaeda has won. Usama bin Laden could never have seriously believed he could bring the United States down, but he may have believed he could undercut American power by attacking and helping wreck the economy. The 9/11 attacks in New York caused something like $500 billion in losses by disrupting the global financial system, the belief in the war has caused the United States to expend countless billions on one of history’s true boondoggles–the Department of Homeland Security–and the war on Iraq, and the enormous rise in oil prices is adding to the misery. High fives all around in the caves!

3. The GWOT is real, it is a continuing menace for which great diligence is required, and what we are seeing is only a temporary lull in the action. Al Qaeda is alive, as are its global partners and spinoffs, and any relaxation will simply make easier the next offensive.

4. The GWOT has always been an overblown construct, a virtual mirage, and the illusion is being exposed for what it is and always has been. 9/11 was certainly a spectacular and horrible event, but it was also the opening gambit/high water mark/capability-exhausting event for the terrorists, and there never has been much danger it (or something worse) could be carried out again. Sensible policy should reflect this and move priorities to other, more real concerns.

Which one of these is closest to the truth? Even stating numbers 2 and 4 is heresy of the first order, number 1 is too self-congratulatory for the election campaign (for one thing, it would require giving George Bush credit for something–hardly likely), leaving number 3 as the rhetorical explanation of choice. But is that really so convincing anymore? Does the American public really wanted a “GWOT without end”? In the absence of an October Al Qaeda surprise, the GWOT will probably lay fallow as the economy hogs the spoltlight. Unless, of course, someone points out that throwing large amounts of money at the GWOT has contributed importantly to the economic mess we are in.


One Response to “The GWOT and the Election”

  1. In my opinion, number 3 is the closest to an “obvious” choice from the four you offer but it is hardly a rhetorical explanation as you assert.

    It is my suspicion that in the academic world, papering over the reality in the form of a list, is subconscientiously all-too-often an automatic because real deliberation of what may be the truth prevents you from starting over the next semester from what you try to sell as a more experienced position.

    I am no fan of George W. Bush and even less fond of George H.W. Bush but it is unfortunate that you seem to have no discipline at all and make no attempt to contain your smirky arrogant contempt for him at the expense of the credibility we seek from our academic institutions. Can you define for me the difference between an education and indoctrination? I think I can; the latter comes with an advanced degree.

    What after Iraq? The answer is simple. More heavy lifting to be done by the willing to eliminate the savage threat to liberty in that contagious part of the planet. Regretably, this will come to a halt under an Obama administration until the next act of carnage to be “prosecuted” by the legal and academic eggheads. Can you say Woodrow Wilson? Let’s face it Professor, one cannot pick up a turd by the “clean” end and the shovelers are as history predicts, being removed from the task by an uninformed and ignorant public. Once more, you cannot mug the willing. God help us all!

    WK Bronson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: