Anniversaries, especially anniversaries of tragedies, should be the occasion for reflection. In the case of the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11, we should reflect on how it happened, how we have reacted to it and whether that preventable event has changed our national character.
If they have caused us to become a different nation the jihadists have won the war on terrorism.
It remains a great mystery that, despite several warnings (including those of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, which I co-chaired), 3,000 Americans were murdered and no one in our government was held accountable or held himself accountable.
Our first response, to overthrow the Taliban regime that had harbored al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, was, like our declaration of war after Pearl Harbor, understandable, defensible and supported by the world. Then three historic departures occurred: We pre-emptively invaded Iraq, a doctrine called the “unified presidency” began to guide decisions, and the elements of a constitutional crisis emerged.
After four years, well over 2,000 American casualties, and the expenditure of over a quarter of a trillion dollars, a large majority of Americans now doubt any real connection between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. This doubt has been substantially increased by the realization that those who sponsored the invasion of Iraq had been advocating it for a decade before Sept. 11. They did so out of a belief that the U.S. could remake the troubled Middle East by creating a military and political base in Iraq. As that scheme became increasingly apparent, it cast doubt on the stated reasons for the invasion – weapons of mass destruction, connections to al-Qaeda, threats against the U.S. – all of which had proved false.
To prosecute the war on terrorism, the “unified presidency” theory, advocated by a number of ideological groups, began to be pursued but without actual explanation or justification to the American people. This theory, adopted in the wake of Watergate era reforms, argued that the president, or at least presidents these groups favored, should be free to suspend constitutional checks and balances, set aside civil liberties such as Fourth Amendment guarantees against unwarranted searches and seizures, and empower the president to disobey acts of Congress with which he might disagree or that he finds inconvenient to his purposes.
Citing Abraham Lincoln’s temporary suspension of habeas corpus or Franklin Roosevelt’s imprisonment of Japanese-Americans does not, of course, make this “unified presidency” theory constitutional. Bad precedents do not justify further bad precedents.
The “unified presidency” has also led to creation of secret prison systems, abuse of prisoners, rendition of suspects to nations that practice torture, war crimes, and a total breakdown of congressional oversight of administration actions. When Congress fails to carry out its constitutional duties, presidents are free to abuse their powers without fear of constraint.
This is the constitutional crisis we face. Cases are now making their way to the Supreme Court testing most, if not all, these abuses. None of this was necessary to protect America. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has made us more vulnerable. We confront an indigenous insurgency used by jihadists to recruit and train. The National Guard, the backbone of homeland security, is deployed in Iraq rather than training at home. The Department of Homeland Security, which I was one of the first to advocate, failed tragically in New Orleans, and homeland security funds have become a political pork barrel manipulated by former DHS executives turned lobbyists.
All of which raises another central question: is jihadist use of terrorist methods an act of war or criminal activity? For 350 years, wars have largely been conducted by nation states using uniformed armies against other nation states for territory or political gain. Al-Qaeda is not a traditional army, it has no political agenda, and it is a stateless nation. It will not be defeated by traditional military means. If it could be defeated by invasion of countries that harbor its cells, we would have to invade Germany, France, Spain and other allies, all of which have al-Qaeda cells in their cities.
Jihadists who use the methods of terrorism will be defeated by superior intelligence, complex infiltration of their cells, international collaboration among police and special forces (rather than go-it-alone invasions), and strict control of nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenals. These activities much more resemble traditional counter-criminal efforts than traditional warfare.
Serious efforts are underway to attack the United States again. We are not as prepared as we should be, either to prevent these attacks or respond to them when they occur. States and cities, as well as the federal government, must be much better prepared than they are. We should not delude ourselves that we are somehow preventing these attacks by the prolonged and ineffective occupation of Iraq. We have created more terrorists there than we have killed.
It would help if Americans were told two facts. The United States is not the only target of terrorism; it is not even the principal target. This is a worldwide problem faced by a number of nations. And the overwhelming instances of suicide terrorism are motivated by occupation by foreign military forces, not radical fundamentalism. Thus, our continued military presence in the Middle East, to protect oil supplies or to pursue some grander imperial scheme, is self-defeating. It increases, not decreases, our vulnerability.
There is a direct link between our energy policy and the threat of terrorism. Our policy is to continue to import well over 60 percent of our oil supplies from abroad, to fuel our energy-inefficient vehicles and, if those supplies are cut off, to sacrifice the lives of our sons and daughters to get the oil back. This policy makes us economically, politically and militarily vulnerable. It is immoral, and it is the principal source of national insecurity in the 21st century.
Gary Hart is a Wirth Chair Professor, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center; and a former U.S. senator from Colorado
