Since the just-failed Detroit
aircraft attack, the difference between Barack Obama and his predecessor has
been clear to see. And this, even though on September 11, 2001, after his chief
of staff whispered into his ear that the country was under attack, it took what
seemed like an eternity for George W. Bush to set aside the children’s book My
Pet Goat at an elementary school in Florida.
However, after seven long,
terrible minutes, came seven years of going all out: Dead or alive, with us or
against us, war on terror, war against Iraq, torture, Guantànamo. Harsh words,
harsh deeds, and little thought for others.
Obama came into office with a
different maxim. The new president wanted to show that in terms of defending
against terrorist threats, America’s safety and America’s values are not a
contradiction. He forbade torture, announced the closure of that mark of shame,
Guantànamo, and reached out to the Muslim world.
Obama's opponents in the U.S.
mocked this as naive and dangerous. "He doesn't want to admit that we’re at war,"
fumed Dick Cheney, when the new government disposed of the nonsensical verbal
monstrosity "war on terror."
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
But in regard to the war, Obama
has in fact spoken very clearly from day one. When he accepted the Nobel Peace
Prize in December, Obama made a speech about just wars. "Evil does exist in
the world," was the key phrase. That sounded like Bush. Obama, however,
doesn't derive from this a right to arbitrary war. He gave the opponent a name:
al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
The difference is more than one
of semantics - even if now, 30,000 additional GI’s being deployed to
Afghanistan and U.S. drone aircraft still killing innocent bystanders from
Yemen to Pakistan: Obama’s war against al-Qaeda is different from Bush’s diffuse
universal "war on terror."
This difference has also been
clear since December 25th, when Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab planned
to ignite an explosive device hidden in his underwear just before landing in
Detroit. One thing is certain: George W. Bush, unlike Obama, would hardly have remained
silent for three days on the subject of an attack attempt. Most likely, the
nation would have preferred strong language to a government that at least
initially creates the impression of wanting to play down the incident.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
But that wouldn't have meant
more security. Once again, America's intelligence agencies failed in the most
embarrassing way, which above all exposed the failure of the reforms and false
priorities of the Bush era. As Obama so rightly pointed out, the U.S.
government had more than sufficient information to stop the plot, but failed to
put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Basically, Obama responded in
the only a way government can, after a terror attack that failed only by luck: He
has the mistakes analyzed, the security gaps investigated, and controls tightened.
One may of course ask why travelers from 14 countries, 13 of which are
primarily Muslim, must be systematically subjected to strip searches.
Or why the deportation of
Guantànamo detainees to Yemen will be halted, even when U.S. courts order their
release. But one cannot criticize Obama for blind vengeance. Unlike Bush, this
U.S. president doesn't use fear to make policy.
