<Back

Defining the world in black and white

On the Verge column by Sheahan Virgin '08

Bad news for the endangered Republican incumbent: over two-thirds of Americans are displeased with current leadership of this country. With the elections only one month away, the kingpin himself, President Bush, is desperately trying to encourage support for his party's unpopular foreign policy.

This past Sept. 11, a day supposedly of mourning and not of politicking, Bush addressed the nation, asserting that in the "struggle between tyranny and freedom" Americans must defeat an "enemy determined to bring death and suffering into our homes." Once again, the White House is relying upon a strategy that politicizes September. 11 and exploits Americans' fears of future terror attacks.

Although the administration's 2006 election strategy is nearly identical to those employed in 2002 and 2004, the terminology used to define America's "enemy" recently changed dramatically. Whereas "evildoers," "terrorists" and "radicals-who-use-terror-to-kill-innocent-people" were popular in the past, last month the president adopted the newest turn-of-phrase, calling America's radical enemies "Islamic fascists."

Aside from the fact that this new language is terribly offensive to Muslims, the president's change in terminology is intentional. "Islamic fascists" is clearly intended to evoke memories of America's battle against fascist regimes during World War II.

In the 1930s and 1940s, our nation faced a grave threat from a unified and ominous enemy: Nazi Germany. Later, the Cold War struck fear into the hearts of Americans. Past presidents, anticipating the Bush administration's strategy, exploited American's fears of foreign threats. But the end of the Cold War not only deprived American presidents of a menacing and monolithic enemy, it weakened their ability to rally the American people for the next great patriotic struggle.

The terror attacks of September 2001 gave officials the foe they required: Al Qaeda. But even after the horrific attacks in September, at the time, Al Qaeda was still relatively unknown, a small and disorganized band of terrorists-hardly a fearsome colossus capable of filling the void left by the "Evil Empire."The war in Afghanistan was understandably supported by the American people. As a retaliatory campaign bent on capturing those who murdered Americans in New York and Washington D.C., creating an enemy of Soviet-like proportions was unnecessary.

But before President Bush could generate support for his less apparent war in Iraq, Al Qaeda needed to be recast as part of a larger, more menacing adversary capable of spurring the American people into a comprehensive war against all terrorism. It gradually became clear that Americans were no longer fighting small bands of terrorists, but rather, the entire movement of Islamic fundamentalism.

Not surprisingly, since Sept. 11, the Bush administration has continued to lump various and differing Islamic terrorist groups and totalitarian regimes into a new monolithic enemy. In 2006, a time when American patience for the war in Iraq is running thin, portraying the enemy as even greater than that in Iraq is more essential than before.

The President often speaks of America's numerous assorted adversaries (Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, etc.) as all members of a "worldwide network" that adheres to a common radical ideology. As Fareed Zakaria notes in the Sept. 18 issue of Newsweek, like the term "Islamic fascists," this rhetoric has the benefit of "making the adversary seem larger and more sinister" than it actually is, "thereby drumming up domestic support for the administration's policies."

Although these various "enemies"undeniably have similar motives and anti-American aims, the Bush administration commits a grave error by lumping together various groups of Islamists and purporting that they belong to the historical mass movement of fascism. As Zakaria explanations, in doing so, the White House fails to recognize a critical mistake of the Cold War.

In the 1950s and 1960s, American policymakers unnecessarily grouped all communists together, creating a massive monolithic opponent. While beneficial for political purposes, at the same time, American policy failed to acknowledge the differences between various communist regimes, differences that could have been exploited.

Blind American administrations failed to play quarrelling communist governments against each other. They unnecessarily forced a fractured communist movement (spread across different states and cultures) to band together against an American government that only saw in terms of black and white. As a result, many communist regimes reluctantly accepted Soviet patronage.

Today, the president commits a similar strategic blunder. By grouping various Islamic fundamentalists together, he foolishly ignores differences between groups coming from different social and political environments. He forgets that adversaries are more easily conquered when divided and fractured, rather than united.

President Bush stresses that the War on Terror is "the calling of our generation," "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century" and "the struggle for civilization." Because of his rhetoric of Good and Evil, Bush forfeits any hope of dealing with these groups separately. It seems as though the president's hard work has finally made his predictions come true. The release of the previously classified National Intelligence Estimate on Sept. 27, describes how the war in Iraq has catalyzed the creation of a "global jihadist movement" composed of formerly diverse and autonomous "anti-American groups."

Bush's recklessness places Americans in increasing danger. The world is gradually dividing into two camps, and the next great patriotic struggle is looming. The president's rhetoric may make a good campaign speech, but it makes for worthless foreign policy. With the present situation looking bleak, perhaps it's time to elect leaders who respect the lessons of the past and endeavor to save the future.

<Back