When the Shouting is Over

Bush Revisionism Starts Here

We at Contra Celsum are reluctant to enter the prediction business. God alone knows the future, for He alone commands all things, even the turn of the dice. All things have their being, action, and movement in Him—and in Him alone.

However, we will indulge on this occasion in a little speculation—and it can be no more than that. We speculate that within ten years, the much hated and maligned George Bush will be being hailed as one of the best US presidents in modern history. The inveterate prejudice displayed against him in almost every country in the world is likely to be, if not forgotten, used as another evidence of a vast left-wing-conspiracy against the forces of moderation and reason.

Peoples' memories are notoriously short when it comes to the recent past. Then, with the passing of time, a broader and usually more reasoned perspective emerges. It is interesting and instructive that most people have already forgotten 9/11 and the days that followed the destruction of the Twin Towers. They have screened out how they felt, reacted, thought, and stamped their feet in frustrated rage, crying for vengeance in those days. They have conveniently forgotten how, when Bush took military action against the Taleban in Pakistan, together with a plethora of related security measures, his approval rating was the highest for any US President in history.

But as they have felt more safe, US media and the left wing-academic complex have felt sufficiently secure to screen out the memory of how they thought, acted, and stamped their feet in those days. Possibly they are embarrassed to recall such sentiments now.

If Bush made a political mistake it was in being successful in protecting the US from terrorist attack for over seven years. He should have re-read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. A smarter thing to do would have been to fund secretly certain terrorist organisations so that they made the odd attack upon US soil and citizens. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib would never have become embarrassments. The people would have called for more of the same. And yes, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama would have been loudly beating the drum the Senate and berating the President for not taking more decisive military action.

But, cynicism aside, we believe Bush did make a major error in the US response to 9/11. He declared war, speaking repeatedly of the War on Terror. This was a politician's response. To marshal public support, people must be given a powerful, visceral symbol. It was easy enough to do. Clearly radical Islam—which many would argue is true Islam—had, for its part, by its own mouth, declared war upon the West in general and upon the United States in particular. Clearly, its war was to be waged against non-combatant innocents. Thus, it was not difficult step to declare war upon the aggressor in response.

But in hindsight it turned out to be a major tactical and political blunder. Clearly this was not war in the conventional sense of the term. The terrorists had almost no territory that could be attacked and controlled. But a declaration of war had inevitable consequences. A state of war allows and tolerates suspension of “normal” legalities and rights. For one, the need to tell the truth goes out the window. Conscription becomes viable and acceptable. Armed invasion of enemy territory becomes appropriate. Treating captured enemy as prisoners of war, with a complete suspension of judicial process is acceptable and expected. These things are normal in a state of war.

And all of these things were done. And all the efforts of the US and the governments of other nations were successful in preventing any more attacks against the United States—despite the fervent declarations by the enemy that they would certainly occur. There have been enough terrorist plots foiled at the last minute to show that these uttered threats were not idle. But the fact remains that it was not war in the conventional sense of that term. Therefore, the measures that normally attend war—concentration camps, armed invasions of other countries, body bags— quickly became odious. They offended the sentiments of the sentimental. The more safe the US felt itself to be, the more odious and bizarre and extremist these measures appeared. Bush succeeded sufficiently to allow people the luxury of judging him to be foolish, unethical and incompetent.

If Bush had called instead for concerted US action against international criminal gangs, it would, in hindsight, have been a much more realistic and appropriate call. For one, it would not have led to an automatic suspension of the due process of law to those captured and imprisoned. It would have placed the terrorist threat in the same conceptual camp as the international drug trade and the nation states that support it. It would have led to a far more politically sustainable campaign against international terrorism in the long run. However, hindsight is always 20-20 vision.

With Charles Krauthammer, we believe that keeping the US safe from terrorist attack will, in historical perspective, come to be regarded as one of Bush's greatest achievements. The revision of his record will commence the day the next attack comes—as it almost certainly will. But then again, we do not traffic in predictions—only speculations.