The Debate

In addressing the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, President Bush told attendees that, "while there's room for an honest and healthy debate about the decisions I made — and there's plenty of debate — there can be no debate about the results in keeping America safe," and suggested that 'virtually no one could have predicted back then that the country would not be hit again for the rest of his presidency.'

Never mind the mental gymnastics necessary to overlook that Bush's effort to come out ahead in the debate to determine his national security and foreign policy legacy is to deny its existence; the same debate that contributed to Republican losses in both the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Never mind that using Bush's own logic regarding the lack of attacks on U.S. soil since September 11th presents all but the first 27 days of the Clinton administration as a terrorist-free paradise of sound intelligence and effective counterterrorism that didn't require protracted military occupation of foreign states; a point that also demonstrates that attacks of this nature have traditionally taken years to plan; perhaps more than seven.

Never mind the ever-present historical fact that the administration now claiming to have unequivocally kept Americans safe throughout its tenure helmed the military and the intelligence communities on September 11th, 2001 and for nearly nine months prior.

Never mind the questionable nature of Bush's statement that 'he rejected a strategy of retreat that would have had Americans hunkering down or seeking quick revenge by attacking nations that supported terrorism, but without a broad plan to address the root cause of the threat' even as officials struggle to define U.S. goals for the war and terrorist havens such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan remain on the U.S. payroll.

Never mind that the war in Iraq was based on incorrect intelligence alleging, among other things; a false connection between Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, and September 11th; false claims of weapons of mass destruction; and a conveniently renewed sense of anger over atrocities committed while Iraq was a U.S. ally.

Never mind that global terrorism generally increased during Bush's two terms in office, and that his policies dealt a blow to the United States' standing within the international community.

And never mind the fact that leaving office without suffering another terrorist attack similar to September 11th is not the be-all and end-all definition of a triumphant security policy, let alone when Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri remain unaccounted-for.

All of that aside, what is perhaps most regrettable about Bush's claim that America and Americans are undoubtedly safer now than on September 11th is the inescapable and disheartening omission of the entire U.S. Military. As of now, roughly 4209 American soldiers have died and nearly 31,000 have been wounded in combat in Iraq alone. Around 144,000 U.S. Military personnel are currently deployed in Iraq, with around 32,000 more in an increasingly dangerous Afghanistan.

One of the enduring failures of the Iraq war's opposition was the movement's inability to thoroughly differentiate "supporting the troops" with supporting the government's foreign policy direction, allowing hawks to monopolize support for the military and paint the anti-war movement as unpatriotic and a dangerous liability to the war's morale and ultimately the war's success. Now, it seems, the administration that cornered the market on supporting the military either consciously or unintentionally left out servicemen and servicewomen in its quantification of Americans' safety.

The administration now praising its own safety record is the same administration that sent too few soldiers into Iraq to complete an ever-changing and poorly devised mission that lacked broad international legitimacy; sent them poorly equipped; sent them for inordinately long tours of duty; conducted training that facilitated psychological trauma and abuse; and periodically seemed totally unconcerned about circumstances or consequences. It also led the pentagon to craft a scorched-earth foreign policy that saw the violent destruction of two countries and a diplomatic strategy that supplemented military actions with amateurish failures on both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regardless of one's definition of a U.S. victory in the Middle East and regardless of whether or not that milestone is achieved in the future, the debate on the safety of Americans both at home and serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere is far from closed. To ignore that is to show very little support for the troops.