On Location: 5 Years On

[Originally posted on goofyblog 9.14.06]

5 years after the worst attack on US soil in history, Osama’s free, Afghanistan isn’t. As President Bush said in March 2002, “I truly am not that concerned about him,” and then began pulling key resources off the hunt for Al Qaeda’s leaders.

Pakistan has signed a truce with Islamic militants in North Waziristan, where bin Laden is most likely hiding—another safe haven adjoining Afghanistan.

Bush has always neglected Afghanistan, providing no peacekeeping troops anywhere but in Kabul and supplying minimal economic aid in the first year after the invasion. Now, war lords and the Taliban rule most of the country, this year NATO forces have sustained a higher fatality rate than coalition troops in Iraq and the country is reverting, becoming a large safe haven for our enemies. More on this can be found here.

But neglect and poor planning are the major themes in Iraq also, as detailed in Peter Galbraith’s article, “Mindless in Iraq,” which reviews several books on the failed reconstruction in Iraq and says in part:

“Trainor and Gordon [authors of Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq] present a devastating picture of Rumsfeld as a bully. Convinced of his own brilliance, Rumsfeld freely substituted his often hastily formed opinions for the considered judgments of his military professionals. He placed in the most senior positions compliant yes-men, like Myers, and punished those who questioned his casually formed judgments. He enjoyed belittling his subordinates. The day before the September 11 attacks, Rumsfeld told a Pentagon meeting that the Defense Department bureaucracy ‘disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.’ His aides followed the same approach: Steve Cambone, Rumsfeld’s closest aide, ‘jested that Rumsfeld thought the Army’s problems could be solved by lining up fifty of its generals in the Pentagon and gunning them down.’”

And finally, a major blow to the executive power grab over our lives all in the name of safety: the Hamden case, decided recently by the Supreme Court, strongly refutes the Bush Administration’s illegal strategy of torture, tribunals, secret prisons and illegal wiretapping. The court’s ruling goes beyond a narrow rebuke, trapping both the legislative and executive branches into adhering to the Geneva Conventions and marks an emerging court majority, at least on these issues, with Justice Kennedy taking the place of Sandra Day O’Connor. The article concludes with the following:

“The Bush doctrine views the rule of law as our enemy, and claims it is allied with terrorism. As the Pentagon’s 2005 National Defense Strategy put it:
‘Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.’
“In fact, both the strength and security of the nation in the struggle with terrorists rest on adherence to the rule of law, including international law, because only such adherence provides the legitimacy we need if we are to win back the world’s respect. Hamdan suggests that at least one branch of the United States government understands this.”

The article, which is a detailed analysis of the decision, can be found here.