Ever hear, see, think or say something that's in reference to one thing, something that you consider to just be a two-cent contribution to the issue or topic at hand, and then later on realize that there may be more beneath the surface?
Well this happened to me. Something I said...just off the top of my head really...and now, going back and reading it again, makes me think about what's really at play when people like Bush talk about the threat of terrorism.
A few days ago, I was on my blog talking about how Bush used the bridge collapse in Minneapolis as an opportunity to bash the Democratically-controlled Congress (and how the media practically editted this attack out to make him seem compassionate). My focus was, like those who have mentioned this before, on Bush's outright disregard for the victims. So much for "changing the tone in DC."
More on the flip...
In closing that post, I made this comment:
Sometimes I wonder: was this the true grand plan of bin Laden and his followers? To get this country so wrapped up in "fighting them over there" that we ignore our own people here? That we dismiss fixing roads and bridges and power lines and levees? That we would send people who normally are the first responders to national disasters away, making the clean-up and rescue efforts that much harder to accomplish? In short: to destroy us from within?
Going back and reading this over, I can't help but think that this may be more than a random theory that popped in my head.
I've always found it curious when Republicans would say "listen to the words of the terrorists" one minute and than accuse those against this occupation of "helping the terrorists." Is trying to have a discussion about the merits of being in Iraq "helping the terrorists" more than say, sending a steady flow of American troops into a country with little armor, virtually no rest and a vague sense of their purpose? Isn't the meme "we have to fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over here" another way of telling our enemy that we're basically "outsourcing" our focus for peace of mind?
Now, don't get me wrong. We have a history of handling issues both foreign and domestic at the same time. It just happens that with this current Adminstration, domestic issues were never really a concern. Everything from NCLB to Medicare has been lip service. Even tried-and-true conservative issues like flag burning and abortion fell to the wayside. And the one thing Bush seriously tried to push (Social Sercuity) failed miserably. This conflict with terrorism is really all he has left.
So Bush does what he's always done: try to convince everyone that his side knows exactly what's going on. But why should anyone believe a president or administration with such a history of domestic negligence and foreign miscalculation? Why should we think, that after six years, now they've got their act together and are getting solid intell? I don't see how any reasonable person could believe it.
What if Bush, Cheney, Sen. Graham, and all of these "One-Week Experts" are completely wrong (again)? What if terrorrism isn't an cohesive ideology (as Bush always seems to claim), but a tool used by a variety of desperate and dispicable groups? What if al Qaeda's goal is not to defeat us militarily, but domestically (or even financially)? What if their mission was to get us so stubbornly and selfishly involved in one location, one conflict, that we flake and fall apart elsewhere?
Someone way smarter than me once wrote:
Heart-wrenching tragedies and crises test both individuals and groups. The horror that befell the United States on September 11, 2001, presented a serious challenge to every Amercian, especially those who deeply care about peace in the Middle East. It wasn't simply the fear and sense of vulnerablility, or astonishment at the degree of ruthlessness that the terrorists exhibited; even more, it was about profound questions that everyone asked - about who we are, what kind of world we live in, and who we want to be. We all understood that the choices we made in responding to this horror not only would affect the degree of the future threat but also would define who we will become.
That was written back in 2002. There's no doubt that we've learned some things since then, but at the same time, there are still things we haven't figured out. The more I here the phrase "actionable intelligence" being used the more I'm convinced that it's way past the time we (as a nation) begin to seriously talk about who "the enemy" is, and what their goals are.
And five years since Professor Telhemi made that statement, with "Operation Groundhog Day" still going strong, I also think it's time to (again) ask ourselves:
Who are we?
What kind of world do we live in?
Who do we want to be?