The politicization of 9/11 has culminated in the hearings of a commission. It is not a straightforward investigation. It is an adversarial process (i.e., a game). Two opposing camps are having at it. Here we find a partisan divide and an ideological divide. One party sees itself as the champion of various "oppressed" subgroups. This party is hostile to wealth and privilege. It dislikes the notion that democracy is a more humane way of organizing oligarchy. One might call this "the party of equality," which believes that oligarchy is oppression (excepting liberationist oligarchy). For them, the machinations of the Bush administration are wicked. America's global position is imperialist. The occupation of Iraq is criminal. The war on terror is a sham.
Administration critics claim that President Bush was asleep at the switch prior to 9/11. Former NSC expert and career civil servant, Richard Clarke, has accused President Bush of doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism." In response, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testified on Thursday that the White House received no specific warning about a terror threat to the United States. Yes, she admitted, everyone knew that bin Laden wanted to attack America. But no one knew what he was planning or how to defend against it. Rice further explained that the United States was not properly organized to deal with a major terrorist assault prior to 9/11. There was no Patriot Act in place, no awareness of danger and no political will to make necessary structural changes. It was not a case of special negligence on the part of the president, but a case of general negligence on the part of a country accustomed to safety and security.
America has a tendency to disregard threats. Steven Emerson produced his award-winning documentary, "Jihad in America," in 1994. It must have been regarded as entertainment, since nobody was inspired to do anything. The idea that Islamic immigrants might pose a terror threat to American society, as their beliefs run contrary to Western cultural concepts, is not generally accepted (even now). Government efforts to defend the country are viewed with suspicion if not hostility by civil libertarians. Some believe the Patriot Act is a sinister plot to trample liberty and set up a dictatorship. If attitudes such as these prevail, the government will lose the war against terror and the cause of freedom will suffer permanent harm.
To understand the weakness of U.S. intelligence on U.S. soil before the Patriot Act, consider the following example: In 1993 Hamas was organizing a terrorist assault - aimed at Isreal - from American soil. When some of the organizers were caught entering Israel the FBI dismissed Israel's legal case against the terrorists. The FBI did not want to believe that Hamas was operating from U.S. soil. Later, the former FBI Director of Counterterrorism Oliver Revell admitted, "We didn't know what was going on in our own backyard."
The FBI's failings, however, stem from national sentiments and attitudes. Americans are a trustful people, an optimistic people. It is doubtful that 9/11 has changed that. If America was surprised at Pearl Harbor and surprised on 9/11, then America will be surprised again. It's a sure bet.
The Bush administration says that America is more secure today than before 9/11. We are told that intelligence methods have improved. Anti-terrorism today is better organized and better coordinated. But the government is arguably diverted in its strategic vision. We are narrowly focused on a small band of Islamic fanatics. But America's real enemy is a coalition that stretches across the globe. The tentacles of this coalition now entangle America's flanks and rear. Communists in Latin America continue to make dramatic gains. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is establishing a communist dictatorship with help from Fidel Castro's special services. Brazil's metamorphosis under Lula da Silva is also worth noting, and so is Bolivia's apparent slide toward the cocaine socialism of Evo Morales. There is also the communist insurgency in Colombia, which has not been crushed. While America fights for democracy in Iraq, democracy is giving way to neo-communism in the Western Hemisphere.
Why does the United States do nothing in the face of this emerging threat?
The United States is afraid of being accused of "imperialism." And besides, Arab terrorism already fills the national security plate. Given the system's emphasis on public opinion polls, it could not be otherwise. Any politician who publicly warned of an emerging communist threat in Latin America would find himself targeted by the left.
Washington also ignores the long-term threat posed by internal ideological subversion. The emergence of radically anti-Western ideas from within America's own schools and universities is a problem no politician dares to confront. You can bet that nothing will be done to stop the financing of radical propaganda disguised as education in the United States. The nation has invested taxpayer money in an educational system that promotes socialist values at the expense of traditional values, so much so that the United States has been transformed, with further transformations in store. The tenured radicals will remain in place. They will continue to spread their ideas. The ideological divide in the United States will widen.
President Bush is criticized for his limitations. But the people of the United States are even more limited. And these limitations are exacerbated by ideological disagreement. These disagreements are so fundamental that the country cannot settle on an authoritative definition of "marriage." The country's elected officials, in this respect, are merely representative.
In terms of the blame game currently making the rounds in Washington, it appears to be an argument over emphasis and context. It appears to be motivated by partisanship. But beneath it all there is an ideological dimension that hasn't been fully grasped. Today's scandal parade diminishes the government's authority and undermines national unity. As trust evaporates, the workability of larger systems may be called into question. This paves the way for revolutionary changes.
