The Enemy At Home (32 page)

Another statute frequently invoked on the left is the Geneva Convention. Critics have bitterly protested the Bush administration’s view that the Geneva Convention does not apply to Al Qaeda captives. Yet the terms of the convention apply only to signatories or parties observing the rules. The Al Qaeda fighters do not represent a state. They are not soldiers in the conventional sense that they wear uniforms and operate in accordance with the laws of war. They ignore the distinction between military and civilian targets. They extend to their captives no protections whatsoever. Consequently they have placed themselves outside the orbit of the Geneva Convention rules.

The most serious charge leveled against the Bush administration in this context is the charge of torturing foreign prisoners to obtain information. Reports of torture have brought forth a torrent of liberal indignation. Columnists like Anthony Lewis and Jonathan Schell are apoplectic on the subject. The
New York Times
gravely warns that torture clearly “doesn’t work” because “centuries of experience show that people will tell their tormentors what they want to hear.”
²⁴
This may be generally true, but (with due respect to the
Times
’s extensive experience on this subject) is it always true? The Israeli government seems to have used torture quite effectively to locate Palestinian hideouts where hostages have been held. Is it not at least possible that torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could provide useful information about future attacks? It seems dangerously smug to make lofty pronouncements about torture when many lives could be at stake.

Undoubtedly torture can be misused, but then the criticism should focus on those misuses. Moreover, there are some forms of torture that no decent community can sanction, no matter what its effectiveness. But this is an issue not of whether torture should be allowed but of what kind of torture should be allowed. Perusing through reports from Human Rights Watch, I list what the group considers to be America’s most egregious forms of torture: sleep deprivation, force-feeding of detainees who refuse to eat, incessant hard rock and rap music, long periods of darkness and isolation, “stress positions” such as being forced to stand with arms outstretched, exposure to very warm and very cold temperatures, and (most controversially) immersion into water to create a sensation of drowning. While I support the idea of congressional oversight of these measures, I don’t find myself shuddering over them. Most are scarcely rougher than what millions of American soldiers suffer in boot camp. Given the forms of coercion that have been used historically, and that are still used throughout the world, the interrogation techniques used by America’s military agencies seem warranted under the circumstances.

It is possible to have a reasonable debate over what powers the government should possess to effectively fight the war and at the same time minimize the threat to civil liberties. What is striking about the left’s position is how obstructionist it is. Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch argues that the U.S. government should “formally abandon all forms of coercive interrogation.”
²⁵
This is another way of saying that it should content itself with information that captured terrorists and insurgents choose to share. Clearly if the Bush administration were to adopt the left’s agenda, it would find itself incapacitated in fighting the war. This does not seem to be a prospect that frightens or deters the left. At every stage the left seems to support the policy that most endangers American security. Considering that America is at war, the restrictions on liberty to date have been minimal. Apply the left’s arguments to World War II and their ridiculousness becomes apparent. “Nazi Captives Being Held in Detention Centers Without Trial.” “German Prisoners Refused Fifth Amendment Protections.” “Government Found Taping Phone Conversations Between U.S. Citizens and Hitler Staff.” I am quite sure there were no such front-page headlines in the
New York Times.

Why then does the left hamper America’s homeland security in this way? In the following chapter, I will offer a theory to explain the strange behavior of the left. Here I simply note that what liberals consider fine points of principle, the enemy interprets as weakness. The 9/11 attacks were the direct result of bin Laden viewing the United States as a feeble giant, all tied up in knots and waiting to be struck. Whatever its motivations, the left through its actions is increasing America’s vulnerability. Having emboldened the enemy to attack us once, the actions of the left are now emboldening the enemy to attack us once again.

NINE

The War Against the War

Decoding bin Laden’s Message to America

I
N 2004, A LEADING CRITIC
of the Bush administration published a stinging critique of the U.S. government’s war on terror. He found Bush’s conduct objectionable from the very time the president was informed about the 9/11 attacks. He charged that notwithstanding the gravity of the occasion, Bush continued reading to children “a little girl’s story about a goat and its butting.” The critic proceeded to fault Bush’s motives for the war on terror. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq, he said, because of “oil and more business for his private companies.” Bush knew that Iraq posed no security threat but “the black gold blinded him and he put his own private interests ahead of the American public interest.” As a consequence, the critic charged, “Bush’s hands are covered with blood” and Iraq has become a “quagmire.” Yet the president refuses to change course because, after all, “the Bush administration has profited” from the destruction of Iraq, as shown by “the enormity of the contracts won by large corporations like Halliburton.” While Bush pretends to promote liberty abroad, “he has brought tyranny and the suppression of liberties to his own country” through “the Patriot Act, implemented under the pretext of fighting terrorism.”

Michael Moore? Al Franken? Nancy Pelosi? Actually, the speaker is Osama bin Laden, in an address to the American people on the eve of the 2004 election. Not only do bin Laden’s more recent statements seem plagiarized from Moore’s Web site and Pelosi’s speeches, but in addition bin Laden seems to have adopted the practice of explicitly citing and commending the works of the left. In his 2004 missive, bin Laden said his message could be better understood if Americans read the works of Robert Fisk, “who is a fellow Westerner…but one whom I consider unbiased.” Bin Laden called on people to pay more attention to Fisk “so that he could explain to the American people everything he has learned from us.”
¹
In his January 2006 videotape bin Laden informed Americans that “if Bush carries on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful to read the book
Rogue State.
” Bin Laden went on to cite a passage by the author, William Blum, who calls on America to withdraw from the Middle East and “give an apology to all of the widows and orphans and those who were tortured” by American troops. Bin Laden proposed such steps as part of a “truce” between Al Qaeda and the United States.

Who are these people singled out for praise by bin Laden? A British leftist who covers the Middle East for London’s
Independent
newspaper, Fisk is the author of several books that blame America for inflicting conquest and unending war on the Middle East. Fisk’s books receive enthusiastic reviews in America’s left-leaning magazines like
The Nation.
Blum is a former Vietnam War protester who posts his articles on leftist Web sites and writes for magazines like the
Progressive.
Noam Chomsky has praised his work, and in 2002 Blum joined Jane Fonda, Barbara Ehrenreich, and a host of other prominent liberals in denouncing Bush’s preparation for the invasion of Iraq. Blum describes his life’s mission as “slowing down the American empire—injuring the beast.”
²
One can see how bin Laden might see his own mission in those same terms.

Blum’s reaction to bin Laden’s endorsement? “I’m not repulsed and I’m not going to pretend that I am,” he told the
Washington Post
. Blum compared bin Laden’s blurb to being listed on Oprah’s Book Club. While Blum admitted he would not like to live in bin Laden’s model society, he said he agreed with bin Laden about America’s role in the Middle East. “If he shares with me a deep dislike for certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy…I think it’s good that he shares those views.”
³

The mystery of bin Laden praising American leftists deepens when we realize that bin Laden is not accustomed to speaking this way. Bin Laden’s earlier statements are delivered in a lofty Islamic rhetoric, with multiple references to the Koran and the battles of early Islam. Now, however, bin Laden seems to be speaking in a kind of American lingo, making arguments that seem very odd for him to make. How unnatural it is to hear bin Laden discuss the Florida recount or Bush’s supposed misreading of U.S. opinion polls. Even more telling, a review of bin Laden’s statements prior to 2004 shows that he always referred to America as a single entity. Never previously did he distinguish between good Americans and bad Americans. Bin Laden’s view of the United States used to be one of undifferentiated evil. But starting in his October 2004 statement, bin Laden insinuates that not all Americans are so evil.

To see how bizarre this is, imagine if Hitler had issued regular missives during World War II in which he praised a group of Americans and cited from their writings. Imagine if he repeated their arguments and rhetoric with such precision that it would be hard to tell his words from theirs. Imagine further that one of Hitler’s favorite American authors embraced the Hitler endorsement, noting that Hitler and he felt pretty much the same way about American foreign policy and praising Hitler for holding such strong anti-American sentiments. The reaction throughout the country would have been one of unmitigated outrage! The reason there was no comparable outrage in this case is because one side, the left, was able to divert attention from the content of bin Laden’s political message, and the other side, the right, totally missed the significance of bin Laden’s actions.

Conservatives have reacted with cocktail-party bemusement to bin Laden’s professions of ideological intimacy with the left. There have been lots of quips about bin Laden being appointed to the board of directors of moveon.org or to a senior editorial position at
The Nation.
The typical conservative analysis concludes with a solemn attempt to dissuade liberal Democrats from giving in to bin Laden’s demands. As David Gartenstein-Ross wrote in frontpage magazine.com, “Accommodation is a trap. Those who favor negotiation and appeasement err in believing that mollifying Bin Laden’s immediate grievances will bring us peace. Ultimately, a strategy of accommodation and negotiation with Al Qaeda is the road to national suicide.”
⁴
This approach completely misses the point of what bin Laden is trying to do, which is not to convince his enemy to capitulate but to convince his allies in America to coordinate their actions more closely with his.

Some on the left have shrewdly recognized this, which is why they make supreme efforts to deny any connection between bin Laden and the left-wing cause. Commenting on bin Laden’s 2004 videotape, David Wallechinsky informed the readers of huffingtonpost.com: “My guess is that he wasn’t trying to help either side. It is more likely that he was tired of being ignored. He saw the world was focused on the American election, and he released his video at that time in order to capture the most possible attention.” If this notion of bin Laden as frustrated attention seeker seems implausible, even more farfetched is Robert Fisk’s claim that bin Laden released his 2004 videotape to help Bush win the election. As Fisk told the left-wing radio program
Democracy Now,
“I’m sure Bin Laden realizes that further threats are more likely to help Bush than Kerry. What he wants now, of course, is a president who will further mire the country in the Middle East swamp. So I think that this is probably Bin Laden’s vote for George Bush.”
⁵
Consider the absurdity of this analysis. Bin Laden and Bush are deadly enemies. Bin Laden calls Bush an apostle of Satan, the murderer of the Muslim people. Why would bin Laden seek to secure the electoral victory of a person he views as the great slayer of Muslims? If bin Laden seeks to defeat Bush’s war on terror, wouldn’t the easiest way to do that be to defeat Bush’s bid for reelection?

When bin Laden released his 2006 videotape, the left once again sought to steer public attention away from his political endorsement of left-wing sources. A few days after the tape’s release, two former Clinton officials, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, rushed to the
New York Times
to interpret what bin Laden might be signaling to the world. Many speculations later, they conclude on an inconclusive note: “It is too early to say how the tape will affect Muslim opinion.”
⁶
But this analysis is a diversion, because bin Laden’s tape was not addressed to Muslim opinion. It was manifestly addressed to the American people. If bin Laden was signaling anyone, it was not Muslims but Americans. It is very important that we understand what he was trying to say.

TO UNDERSTAND BIN
Laden’s American strategy, we need to reexamine with fresh eyes the reaction to 9/11 and the debate over the war on terror. Earlier in this book I spoke of a short period of national unity following 9/11, but there was one group that did not join in these sentiments. This was the left. According to the left, 9/11 was not a uniquely tragic event. “As atrocities go,” Noam Chomsky remarked, “it doesn’t rank very high.” Historian Eric Hobsbawm adds, “It was an appalling human tragedy. But it didn’t change anything in the world situation.” In the left’s view, the event was of little consequence and paled before the terror that America had long inflicted on Muslims and the rest of the world. Shortly after 9/11, Chomsky traveled to Islamabad to inform a Muslim audience that for centuries America had been killing colossal numbers of people, far more than the few thousand killed in bin Laden’s attack. The only significance of 9/11, Chomsky added, is that “for the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. That is a dramatic change.”
⁷

In this sense, 9/11 represented for the left a kind of equalization or political justice. To put it bluntly, America deserved it. “Given the constant belligerence and destructiveness of U.S. foreign policy,” wrote William Blum, “retaliation has to be expected.” Author and future Nobel laureate Harold Pinter termed America a “rogue state” that “knows only one language—bombs and death.” Political scientist Robert Jensen said that 9/11 was “no more despicable than the massive acts of terrorism that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime.” Some on the left took immense symbolic satisfaction in the destruction of the World Trade Center. Author Norman Mailer wrote that “everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that Tower of Babel which consequently had to be destroyed.”
⁸

In addition to viewing 9/11 as predictable and overdue, some on the left even admitted fantasizing about it. “They did it,” the French critic Jean Baudrillard wrote, “but we wished for it.” Political scientist Richard Berthold said that “anyone who can blow up the Pentagon would get my vote.” There were calls for an encore. Referring to American soldiers killed in Somalia in 1993, anthropologist Nicholas De Genova expressed his hope that bin Laden and his allies would inflict on America “a million Mogadishus.” Political scientist Ward Churchill said that in order to compensate for the mass murder that America has inflicted throughout the globe, bin Laden would have to kill several million more Americans.
⁹

From the beginning, the left derived from 9/11 the lesson that American foreign policy was to blame and therefore America was the enemy. Historian Glenda Gilmore said, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.” Since America’s war against terrorism is evil, Joel Stein wrote in the
Los Angeles Times
, “I don’t support our troops. We shouldn’t be celebrating people for doing something we don’t think was a good idea.” In an argument that echoed bin Laden’s own justification for killing American civilians, Churchill argued that by refusing to “effectively oppose” their government’s genocidal policies, U.S. citizens were guilty of “endorsing official criminality.”
¹⁰

If 9/11 wasn’t very significant for the left, what was significant was President Bush’s reaction to 9/11. It is this reaction, Hobsbawm writes, “that did change the world.” The left argued that the Bush administration’s response to terrorism itself constituted terrorism—indeed a worse terrorism than that of 9/11. Howard Zinn wrote that in the name of a war on terror, “We are terrorizing other people.” Cindy Sheehan routinely calls Bush “the biggest terrorist in the world.” Robert Fisk said Bush was using 9/11 to invade “a country which had nothing to do with those atrocities.”
¹¹

Iraq? No, Fisk is talking about Afghanistan. Today, in the context of the Iraq debate, many liberal Democrats seek to enhance their political credibility by noting that they supported Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan. Some liberals were indeed supportive of Bush’s action there. Others—especially elected leaders—acquiesced in it because they did not want to be perceived as “soft on terrorism.” But the left was opposed to Bush’s war on terror from the outset, and mobilized to stop Bush from bombing Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban. Even the prospect appalled historian Eric Foner, who said, “I am not sure which is more frightening—the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House.” The same note of moral equivalence was struck by historian Howard Zinn, who wrote that just like the 9/11 attacks, “The U.S. bombing of Afghanistan is also a crime which cannot be justified.” To invade Afghanistan, Richard Falk wrote, shows an obstinate American “refusal to negotiate with the Taliban” and represents a “frontal denial of that country’s sovereign rights.”
¹²

On September 19, 2001, leading figures on the left published an ad in the
New York Times
under the banner headline “Not in Our Name.” The ad condemned Bush’s war on terror as a “war without limit.” The signers of the ad were an interesting mix of cultural leftists and foreign policy activists. The list included authors Edward Said and Howard Zinn, novelists Kurt Vonnegut and Toni Morrison, playwright and gay rights activist Tony Kushner, civil rights leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, feminists Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Katha Pollitt, former Vietnam War protesters Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, movie directors Spike Lee and Oliver Stone, actors Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, and Danny Glover, death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Democratic congressman Jim McDermott.
¹³
The activist group MoveOn.org circulated a petition to its supporters warning that if America invaded Afghanistan, “We become like the terrorists we oppose.”
¹⁴
The left, by its own count, organized more than a hundred demonstrations across the country to stop the United States from overthrowing the Taliban regime.