Addressing the U.S. Army War College on December 17, the outgoing President Bush delivered a direct and extended final defense of his administration’s foreign policy over the last 8 years. While the speech covered a range of topics, a key point was the President’s adamant reminder that because of his post-9/11 policies, there has not been a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. It is this point, which enjoys frequent play from conservative mouthpieces and White House spokespeople alike, that I wish to examine along several lines which I believe beg acknowledgment and harsh critique.
1. “So, What About 9/11?”
Even more puzzling than the attempt to take credit for the nation’s post-9/11 safety without ever admitting the failure to keep the nation safe on that particular day, is the herd-like sheepishness of those who accept such desperate school playground tactics. It is not my intent to open a 9-11-truth discussion; at this point I do not believe that the U.S. had a hand in planning or purposefully allowing the attacks. My point is simply that the hard line Bush is trying to draw between pre and post is faulty. There indeed have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 2001. However, if he desires any praise to rest on his shoulders for the policies which have kept the homeland safe, he MUST also accept responsibility for the policies which failed to protect us on 9/11. To my knowledge there has been no formal apology to the families of those who lost their lives, or to the nation. Rather, the events of that day have been exploited in ways that need no extended description here. Let it suffice to point out that for the majority of Americans since the founding of the nation, a basic role of government is to protect its citizens from foreign powers who wish them ill. Having failed in that role on 9/11, this administration has sought to (perhaps successfully) redefine the way its citizens conceive of protection. Rather than protection meaning a kind of preventative measure to ensure safety, people are now content to observe vicarious vengeance and disproportionate aggression in a volume sufficient to drown out the pain of having not been protected, and provide a false (yet sufficient) sense of security amid fear of not being safe. Incidentally and circularly, this fear is what allows said government to continue carrying out its failed policies.
To reiterate, ultimate responsibility for the thousands of murders which took place in the terrorist attack lies on those who carried them out. That being said, we and the President must at least be consistent in our giving and receiving of praise. If Bush is responsible for successful policies, as President of the United States, he must also accept responsibility for the failed ones.
2. “How We Got Safe.” and “Are We Really?”
‘Torture’ is the word of the day here, and for Vice President Cheney, it’s almost as easy to redefine as ‘protection’ or maybe ‘executive branch.’ In order to even discuss this topic rationally, we must put behind us what seems to be, based on back-and-forth contradictory statements the White House has made over the last 8 years, the Bush administration’s anti-rational confusion about what exactly torture is, whether or not they use it, and whether or not it is immoral. Let’s simply pick up with their most recent story—they do use it, and that’s okay because there hasn’t been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Amid CRIMINAL investigations into the U.S. government’s use of torture in the war on terror, Cheney cited, in so many words, his clear conscience on the matter because of the legal advice the White House sought regarding the use of torture and how to not call it torture anymore.
What this all comes down to then, is that torture, which has, since the dark ages, until recent years been universally frowned upon as inherently evil, is now being presented as not-so-bad if it keeps the people perpetrating it safe and is okay with their lawyers. I will expand on just how torture is NOT okay in section 3.
It may be relevant to address the question of whether torture has indeed made us safer, despite the inconsequentiality of the answer next to the prime question of its morality or lack thereof. The Bush administration has been clear and consistent in asserting that it is indeed effective and, in case you’ve forgotten, has on various occasions saved us from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. However, this is in direct conflict with the unanimous conclusion of counterterrorism officials and experts (besides Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.) in the U.S. and around the world who know that “not only have coercive methods failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale through false leads, chimerical plots, and unnecessary safety alerts.” The facts of the matter are simple: A tortured person who knows nothing will at some point tell the torturer whatever it is that he or she wants to hear, while by and large, a dedicated individual who does have information, will never give up sensitive details essential to the success of his or her cause (take for instance, John McCain).
To conclude this section, let us recall that according to the Bush administration, the safety of our homeland is thanks in large part to the implementation of the medieval-Spanish Inquisition-barbarian-style practice of torture. God bless the USA and God bless the desecration of human dignity. (I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether it is the dignity of the torturer or the tortured being desecrated.)
3. “At what cost?”
Another striking aspect of the gloating declaration of the safety of our homeland since 9/11 is its blatant ego- and ethno-centrism. Are we Americans to smile and accept this ‘safety’ without reflecting on the murders of hundreds of thousands of people who are unfortunate enough to live in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or other countries who endure DAILY terrorist attacks? Some of which, specifically in Iraq, are in response to the presence of U.S. military forces. Furthermore, are we to ignore the thousands of murders which have directly resulted during military and counter-terrorism operations, basking in our own privileged circumstance of not living down the block from a terrorist? Though I won’t expand on this here, if one were to do so, the President’s statement at the Army War College, “We expanded our efforts to combat the conditions of despair and hopelessness that give rise to rage and radicalism,” is more ironic than true. Again, to my knowledge, there has been no formal apology from the White House to the families of the innocent civilians killed in the War on Terror, and until there is, the President cannot expect to receive any praise for the ousting of Sadaam Hussein and the Taliban.
Similarly, when we return to the subject of torture, we must ask ourselves what the cost of our ‘safety’ really is. Now that torture has been implemented and defended as a legitimate policy, the U.S. government has placed itself in the company of many less-than-savory historical and contemporary characters, and listing any will no doubt invite angry responses from readers; but, I think we can all think of a few. Like such villains, it is hard to imagine how history—in a manner Bush is banking on—could smile on such tactics, those who carried them out, or those who endorsed and defended them.
The final cost I want to open for discussion, rather than draw out here, is theological in nature. Christians universally affirm that all human beings are created in the image of God, and I believe it is necessary, especially for Evangelicals who so readily tow the neoconservative line, to reflect on how the use of torture and pre-emptive aggression relates to our view of this image-bearing. James tells us that faith is dead if we simply claim it without putting it into practice. Relating back to other topics I’ve mentioned, are we justified in viewing people who bear the image of God as collateral damage in a desperate attempt to save our own nation, our own hyper-consumerist economy, or our own political interests? And how are we to derive from Scripture a kind of guideline as to when a person ceases to bear the image of God, or what types of behavior or situations grant us the right to treat them as if they do not? Finally, when we torture another human being or intentionally kill an innocent human being in order to get the bad guys, in what way are we fulfilling our own roles as image-bearers? Christ tells us in Mark 12:17 that we who bear the image of God belong to Him and are to go about the work of HIS Kingdom, not Caesar's.
Policies of pre-emptive aggression and torture, while touted by many as having kept our nation safe, must be sharply criticized and no longer blindly and passively accepted as effective and morally right. Furthermore, these policies must be questioned as to how they reflect or do not reflect the events of 9/11 which have since been exploited to justify them. For Christians and non-Christians alike, the Bush mentality of destroy-them-before-they-d
