Obviously, George W. Bush is soft on terrorism.
It is true that, immediately following the outrage of 9/11/01, he properly counter- attacked the criminals - alQaeda - and those who harbored them, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
And then he took his eye off the (terrorist) ball to pursue a geo-political strategy.
In retrospect, we can see why. There was a pre-existing desire and plan to attack Iraq created and promoted by a small group of very cold warriors - including but not limited to Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. They believed a victorious American war on Iraq might change the political dynamics of the Middle East, permitting (among other things) a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. They may also have wished to promote democracy in the Middle East (Wilsonian idealism?) and gain control of Iraqi oil (capitalist realism?)
And they saw 9/11/01 as an opportunity to promote the Iraqi project.
(This is on the record in "Bush at War", the book Bob Woodward did, based on NSC transcripts and interviews with the major White House players.
Wolfowitz may be heard, on page 83, seizing the opportunity to push for an attack on Iraq.
Powell argues, on 87, that nobody could look at Iraq and say it was responsible for September 11. But he does not close the door. "Keep the Iraq options open if you get the linkages," he says.)
Having decided to embark on the Iraqi track, the White House gave two big reasons.
1) Saddam Hussein helped alQaeda.
Maybe, but not likely. The enmity between Muslim terrorists like bin Laden and secular tyrants like Saddam is on the historical record. And the Administration hasn't offered anything resembling proof for their contention that the Baathists and alQaeda cooperated.
(The White House always conflates the two with frequent references to its "war on terror." Separately, the President admitted in a news conference that there's no proven tie. Result? More than 50% of Americans tell pollsters they think Iraq was involved.
2) Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
He once did, of course. But it now seems he got rid of them.
(Wolfowitz has conceded, in any case, that WMD was a pretext for the preemptive action, not the real reason.)
To return to the premise - as the US warred on Iraq, we neglected the pursuit of the terrorists and their protectors, the Taliban.
Not to mention, post-Taliban Afghanistan. As I write, the Karzai government has a shaky hold on the capital city and no hold on most of the country. We are fighting medium-scale engagements, again, with the Taliban. And bin Laden remains at large.
Perhaps most seriously, we worry that our attack on Iraq has strengthened alQaeda and other anti-Western elements throughout the Muslim world. Or at least Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has that concern; it was in the leaked memo that made headlines a few months ago.
Why did George W. Bush turn away from the terrorists and go the Iraqi route? Did it have anything to do with Saudi Arabia's support for bin Laden?
Tomorrow, I will try to continue this exploration of the President's softness on terrorism.
A.A.
PS It's Sunday afternoon. NFL time.