Obama on Anti-Terrorism and Bush

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 24 April 2013
by Tao Duanfang (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Elizabeth Cao. Edited by Bora Mici.
The surface of what happened on April 15, in regard to the bombings at the Boston Marathon in Massachusetts, has finally been broken. The police and the CIA have identified two suspects: the Chechnya-born Tamerlan Tsaernaev and Dzhokhar Tsaernaev. The former was killed in a confrontation with the police, and the latter was arrested after being found hiding on a boat. Their motives and, if any, behind-the-scenes guidance by others have yet to be revealed, but President Barack Obama has already made it clear that the attacks were indeed terrorist attacks.

For the U.S. and those abroad who have been following this news, this is noteworthy. After the 2001 attacks on 9/11, the term “anti-terrorism” became commonly used and was closely related to the internal affairs of the U.S., as well as its diplomatic and military behavior. The Patriot Act and a series of other measures were introduced at the expense of personal freedom and privacy in order to provide a more comprehensive grasp of intelligence information on terrorist attacks. This has included tightening borders and introducing airport security measures to the point where many people have had to adopt new travel habits. Outside of the U.S., anti-terrorism has been used against Iraq and Afghanistan, where there have been two long-running “wars on terror.”

It should be recognized that through the leadership of former President George W. Bush, the external and domestic ways of combating terrorism have had a significant effect on national security. Although the war on terror had significant costs and was very controversial in light of the falsehood of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, it has dealt a heavy blow to members of al-Qaida and the Taliban, which has increased anti-American sentiments in the region. The increased pressure and burden the U.S. has put on other countries has allowed its influence to reach a climax.

But this climax is based on high consumption and was achieved over a long period of time, even when times were more peaceful. When the financial crisis broke out, the heavily indebted U.S. became powerless. From the Bush Doctrine to the gold standard and negative equity, these issues caused a lot of resentment and many became "anti-Bush." With a commitment to end the war on terror, the dark horse, candidate Barack Obama, became Bush’s successor in the White House.

After coming into power, relying on the tactic of going in the opposite direction of the Bush Doctrine, Obama developed a timetable to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and avoid interfering in Libya, Syria and other hot spots. With regard to strengthening the domestic anti-terrorism legislation, these actions did not appear so positive.

However, this is only looking at the situation from the surface. In actuality, during the Obama administration, U.S. counterterrorism actions have been incredibly successful. Osama bin Laden and other key terrorist figures have been targeted and killed, significantly affecting the activity of these extremist organizations. Large-scale use of unmanned aerial vehicles, drones, has resulted in fewer soldier casualties, and for many, Obama’s actions have actually helped implement measures to strengthen the protection of embassies, especially after the John Christopher Stevens incident.

Obama does not spend much time talking about anti-terrorism or the war on terror, which were key components of the Bush Doctrine, but his actions show that he still places great importance on anti-terrorism. For instance, his tactic of using drones bears resemblance to many qualities of the Bush Doctrine, although it does not bear the name. Granted, the investment of the U.S. in anti-terrorism has plummeted in the Obama era. However, this is not so much because of the end of "anti-terrorism," but because the economy and national strength no longer allows for it.

The Arab Spring has certainly helped deepen the development of anti-terrorism on the international front, while also making it very easy to help develop of the same kind of environment that led to the rise of bin Laden and the Taliban in the past. Since the Boston bombing suspects have been identified, is it not interesting to note that these two people are political refugees who were admitted to the U.S. not too long ago?

As the scars of 9/11 fade, the fear of terrorism and the fear for one’s own safety is gradually giving way to a focus on other things, like the economy, employment and personal freedom. Bush’s anti-terrorism tactics have gone from heroic to venomous to society. For this reason, Obama spent his two campaigns and terms trying to avoid talking about anti-terrorism, and especially the war on terror, as much as possible, despite still working on such policies. Now is the perfect time to talk about anti-terrorism: The Boston bombings have awoken the memories of 9/11 for many Americans, but even so, Obama will carefully keep his distance from directly addressing his stance on anti-terrorism and the Bush Doctrine.


4月15日发生在美国马萨诸塞州波士顿马拉松赛上的爆炸案如今至少在表面上已算案破:被警方和CIA认定的两名嫌犯——来自车臣的塔梅兰•特萨尔纳伊夫和乔哈尔•特萨尔纳伊夫,前者在与警方对峙时丧命,后者则在藏匿的小艇上被捕。两人的作案动机、尤其是否有“幕后黑手”尚待查核,但自总统奥巴马以下,却已明确给事件作出“恐怖主义袭击行为”的定性。

  对于美国和国外关注者而言,这是个值得关注的定性:自2001年“9•11”发生后,“反恐”便成为和美国内政、外交、军事行为息息相关的一个常用名词。对内,“爱国者法案”等一系列以牺牲个人自由和隐私为代价,换取当局和情报部门对恐怖袭击信息更全面掌握的措施相继出台,边境、机场的安检措施也步步收紧,到了几乎改变许多人旅行习惯的地步;对外,借“反恐”名义相继发动伊拉克、阿富汗两场旷日持久的“反恐战争”,并以对反恐战争的态度,对相关各国及各势力“划线站队”。

  应该承认,由小布什前总统主导的、内外兼修的反恐“复方”,在保障美国目标安全(尤其本土目标安全)方面,起到了明显效果。虽然反恐战争消耗大,争议多,还闹出过萨达姆“大规模杀伤性武器误报”这样的笑话,但也确实沉重打击了以“基地”和“塔利班”为代表的穆斯林极端组织,并顺带给全球反美国家、势力以沉重的压力和负担,使美国的影响力一度达到巅峰。


  但这种巅峰是以高消耗、长时间为代价的,即便在顺风顺水的和平时代,也非崇尚自由主义的美国人所能久耐。当金融危机突然爆发、债台高筑的美国自顾不暇力不从心之际,“布什主义”就从“金字招牌”变为“负资产”,令打着“去布什化”旗号,承诺任内结束伊拉克、阿富汗两场反恐战争的“黑马”奥巴马势如破竹地入主了白宫。

  靠“处处与布什主义唱反调”上台的奥巴马深知个中奥妙,上台后在反恐领域也处处反其道而行之:制订从伊拉克、阿富汗撤军时间表,在干涉利比亚、叙利亚等热点方面或浅尝辄止,或进二退一,在强化国内反恐立法、手段方面,也显得不那么积极。

  但这仅是表面现象:在奥巴马执政期间,美国的反恐行动和投入并非只做减法,不做加法。拉登、奥拉基等一系列恐怖“名人”相继被定点清除,“基地”组织活动能力大受影响,是在奥巴马时代做到的;大规模采用无人机进行“零伤亡”反恐,为此不惜和盟友及国际组织反目,也是奥巴马一力推行的;在史蒂文斯事件后加强驻外使领馆保护等措施,也是奥巴马推动落实的。

  事实上,奥巴马只不过不多谈“反恐”或“反恐战争”这些“布什主义”色彩强烈的专有名词,但在实际行动上,却仍非常重视反恐,甚至在诸如无人机越境攻击等方面,他依然采取了“不叫布什主义的布什主义”的单边主义做法。当然,美国在奥巴马时代,反恐投入锐减,反恐战线收缩,这些都是事实,但这与其说是反恐意愿的收敛,毋宁说是经济、国力不再允许,以及随着“阿拉伯之春”的深化发展,国际反恐日渐呈现敌中有我、我中有敌态势,贸然行动很容易重蹈当年“培养”拉登和塔利班的覆辙——此次被认定的波士顿爆炸案嫌犯,不正是当年被美国接纳的车臣政治难民么?

  随着“9.11”伤痕的淡化,对恐怖主义的担心和自身安全的恐惧,逐渐让位于对经济、就业、自由度等的关注,小布什的反恐扮相也从英雄主义变成了“票房毒药”,正因为此,奥巴马才在两次选战和两届任期里尽量避免谈及“反恐”、尤其是“反恐战争”的词汇,尽管实际上他并没有放松去做。此番重提“反恐”,是因为波士顿爆炸案重新唤醒许多美国人对“9•11”的回忆,但即便如此,奥巴马也会小心翼翼地将“奥巴马的反恐”和“布什主义”拉开距离。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Nigeria: Trump’s Threat of War with Nigeria

Jordan: The Future of Gaza

Egypt: The United States and the Peace Initiative

Egypt: Trump’s Shifting Positions

Bangladesh: Rare Earth Elements Are the New Drivers of Global Power

Topics

Philippines: Our US Alliance May Well Get Our Nation Destroyed

Jordan: The Future of Gaza

Egypt: And What about Israel’s Violations?!

South Africa: US Blockade or Not, Cuba Remains a Beacon of Hope for Other Nations

Lebanon: America and Lebanon … An Obscure Picture

Nigeria: Trump’s Threat of War with Nigeria

Egypt: The United States and the Peace Initiative

South Korea: The ‘Devil in the Details’ Lives On

Related Articles

Philippines: Our US Alliance May Well Get Our Nation Destroyed

Bangladesh: Rare Earth Elements Are the New Drivers of Global Power

Nigeria: Electricity Will Decide the AI Race

Colombia: The Global Game: China Advances, but the United States Still Sets the Pace

Australia: As Donald Trump and Xi Jinping Prepare for Trade Talks, China Comes with a Strong Hand