Uptown Conjecture

I meant to write this blog A LONG TIME AGO but I never got around to it. And since Bush has left office...I don't know.

I often hear on the news how America is "safer", as we have had no attacks since the tragedies of September 11th. Along with that statement is often a claim that Bush doesn't get enough credit for that and his other blunders are too heavily focused on.

Then I would wonder, can we really attribute that to Bush? What did Bush do specifically in policy and diplomatic efforts that made it more difficult to attack the US? I texted 3 politically aware and opinionated friends over winter break asking if they thought that things were "safer" and can it be attributed to Bush or is it just a function of chance?

My first friend said that no one can be sure of that but he thinks that the war on terrorism is an epic failure and listed the attacks in London, Glasgow, Madrid, and Mumbai. I thought that was interesting because here I am (and the media too) considering the war on terrorism as the US versus "them". But terrorism is a worldwide concern and terrorists can attack anywhere. So if some are not safe, none are safe, right?

My second friend said "Well being that [Bush's] administration orchestrated 9/11, I'd have to say its a function of chance." I love that girl. I'm not gonna lie, the conspiracy theory of 9/11 being an "inside job" is quite compelling.

My last friend said that the "Bush administration is actually intimidating, believe it or not." So maybe Bush's hasty decision to bomb Afghanistan after the attacks and hastier decision to commence a war in Iraq made America seem like a force to be reckoned with. Therefore terrorists have thought twice about committing acts of violence against this nation. As much as I respect this last friend's intelligence and opinion, this, I cannot buy.

1) Terrorism is a global concern and just because the US hasn't suffered any attacks doesn't mean the "war on terrorism" is going well. 2) It was an "inside job" and we really didn't need to worry about terrorism any more than we have had to in the past. 3) Bush's administration, however one may disagree with policy and action, has put a hamper on terrorist activities with their strong military response.

I wonder what you think. I must say that I subscribe to number 1. Why even evaluate "our" safety if the rest of the world remains vulnerable?