Obama’s 9/11

After the unsuccessful terror attack, the United States president takes flak – unjustly.

Everything turned out fine. The passengers and crew of Delta flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit are well and healthy. But in the U.S., all political organizations know the terror factor can play a major role in elections, despite the fact that those running can do little to control events. A bloody attack could well cost Obama the election in 2012, even if he were totally successful everywhere else. Or an attack could cost him his congressional majority in 2010, a majority he needs to complete his agenda.

Of course, no Republican would ever admit he wanted such a catastrophe to happen, but the rationale for the desired interpretation, should an attack ever take place, has long since been established. After the 2001 attack on New York, so the argument goes, George W. Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, prevented another attack on American soil for more than seven and a half years. Obama is weak on national security and a Muslim-appeaser to boot, so he’s a security risk. Cheney has recently used everything Obama does as an excuse to drive home this accusation, even the plan to close Guantanamo and move the inmates to various states and to a high-security facility in Illinois.

The failed bombing now serves as a new opportunity. Three accusations are currently making the rounds. First, Obama doesn’t take the terrorist threat seriously, resulting in a lowering of our guard, as this incident proves; second, Obama didn’t respond to the attempt with a saber-rattling speech; he merely made a few precautionary changes and didn’t immediately raise the national warning level from orange to red; and third, he isn’t being proactive enough against countries where the terrorists hatch their plans in relative safety, in this case Yemen.

Many Americans think at least two of the charges are right on target, although they’re really only marginal. Airport controls and terrorist watch lists instituted during the Bush years have been continued. After the perpetrator’s father warned the American embassy in Nigeria of his son’s increasing radicalization, his name could have been placed on a list warranting closer controls, rather than putting it on a distant list of suspects. And it’s high time that a system is developed in the U.S., as well as in Europe, that would enable inspectors to detect plastic items hidden under clothing. That hasn’t been done, presumably because of the high cost of doing so, but that was true during the Bush era, as well. And although Obama loves to give speeches, he doesn’t do so in Bush’s aggressive, war-like manner, something much-loved by many Americans.

Finally, the third charge is blatantly false. Bush neglected the war in Afghanistan in order to wage a war against Iraq. Obama takes the Afghan war seriously. And Obama is doing more to combat the danger of terror in Yemen than Bush ever did. How much is being done has only recently come to light since the use of unmanned drone attacks aroused the public. Many in Europe might feel Obama’s Yemen strategy is too brutal; in the U.S., many feel it isn’t brutal enough.