The White House statement on Tuesday that
Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser of
President George W Bush, would testify under oath in a
public hearing before the 9-11 Commission investigating
the terrorist attacks on the United States marks a major
reversal of an earlier position that she would not do
so, since that would have been a violation of the
separation of power between the legislative and
executive branches of government and the doctrine of
executive privilege.
Allowing Rice to testify
was not the only capitulation of the administration.
Bush also agreed to appear for questioning, along with
Vice President Dick Cheney, before the entire
commission, albeit in private. These are major
concessions, and the stakes for the president are high.
They revolve around the credibility of whom the American
people should believe - Bush's former counter-terrorism
official Richard Clarke, or Bush - on the subject of
whether the United States was fully focused on al-Qaeda
before the September 11, 2001, attacks, and whether Bush
continued to pay an inordinate amount of attention to
Iraq, instead of al-Qaeda, even after those attacks.
Controversy swirling around these questions will not go
away, even after those testimonies.
One of the
accusations that Clarke made was that the Bush
administration was not focused on global terrorism or
al-Qaeda before the attacks. The White House decided to
focus on that point in its own media blitz aimed at
neutralizing Clarke's charges. Rice told the CBS program
60 Minutes - which, incidentally, was also the
venue used by Clarke to make his accusations - that Bush
was briefed by the director of central intelligence "46
times with items related in one way or another to
al-Qaeda" before the terrorist attacks.
What
about the Bush administration's plan of action to prove
its preoccupation with terrorism before September 11?
Rice explained that the then-new administration was
trying to develop a new strategy to deal with global
terrorism. Rice quoted Bush as saying: "I can't swat at
flies anymore; I've got to have a comprehensive strategy
to take this organization down."
But the 9-11
Commission found no evidence that a strategy was,
indeed, in the making. It stated: "The new
administration began to develop new policies toward
al-Qaeda in 2001, but there is no evidence of new work
on military capabilities or plans against this enemy
before September 11." When probed on that point on 60
Minutes, Rice countered: "It was a
three-to-five-year strategy" and that the Defense
Department was tasked "to develop contingencies that
would give us more robust military options against the
Taliban, should we not be able to force them out of
power through either intelligence activities or through
further diplomacy. So, in fact, there were contingency
plans that were to be drawn up by the Defense Department
to do precisely that." However, General Hugh Shelton,
then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the
Bush administration pushed terrorism "farther to the
back burner". These contradictions and disparities are
not likely to disappear.
Another serious
accusation by Clarke was that Bush remained focused on
Iraq, instead of on al-Qaeda, and wanted him to find
evidence supporting that proclivity. What is damaging
the administration is not just the fact that Clarke has
made this charge. Rather, there are a whole slew of
other related issues that are highly visible and still
lingering. The absence of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) in Iraq seems to have convinced the global
community that Bush and British Prime Minister Tony
Blair proceeded, at best, on the basis of their
fictitious belief regarding the existence of such
weapons, and, more important, about the purported
imminence of Saddam Hussein's use of WMD against the US
and/or the United Kingdom.
To add further fuel
to the fire, al-Qaeda-related terror attacks have been
on the rise in different regions of the world in the
past few months. The headlines of March 30 cover
terrorist attacks in Uzbekistan, resulting in the loss
of more than 20 lives, and the foiling of
al-Qaeda-related attacks by the authorities in the
United Kingdom and the Philippines. Alleged
al-Qaeda-related targeting of trains (as in Spain) as
the newest approach in its terror strategy further
heightens the sense of anxiety and vulnerability all
over the world. The question is being raised in
different corners of the globe whether the window of
opportunity to eradicate al-Qaeda has been permanently
closed because of the Bush administration's wrong-headed
decision to leave the task unfinished in Afghanistan in
order to go after dismantling the regime of Saddam.
The most troubling point about Iraq is that it,
indeed, has become a gathering place for global jihadis
who are bent on confronting the United States and, in
the process, ensuring that Iraq remains a hellish place.
Considering the huge emphasis the US has placed on the
emergence of a democratic Iraq and its positive
implications for the entire Middle East, nothing seems
more precious to terrorists and insurgents in that
country than ensuring that a democratic and stable Iraq
never becomes a reality. Thus every major terrorist
event in Iraq serves as a reminder to the critics of the
Bush administration of its continued failure to defeat
terrorism and, more substantial, its failure to
eradicate al-Qaeda when it had the opportunity in
Afghanistan.
To be fair, there is certain
element of exaggeration and unfairness in criticism of
the United States' handling of global terrorism.
However, as it edges closer to the presidential election
in November, the Bush administration continues to be
bogged down because the obduracy and intractability of
its opponents seem hell-bent on extracting their own
pound of flesh, which might emerge in the form of the
ouster of George Bush from the White House.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria,
Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
