Bin Laden and the Bush Legacy

ThreatsWatch.org, a web resource devoted to providing information on threats to our national security, put up an interesting post this morning. In "The Clock Ticks for the President," Steve Schippert takes issue with an article from The Times (UK) that portrays increased efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden as nothing more than "a self-serving effort to ensure he [President Bush] can include the killing or capture of Usama bin Laden on his watch." This is absurd, of course, and Schippert does an excellent job of analyzing the real motivation behind our stepped up efforts in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region.

The critical factor driving more aggressive operations, rightly noted by Schippert, is the changing situation not in Washington, but in Pakistan.

While Pakistan has never been a consistently reliable partner in the war on terror, the United States has, in general, been able to count on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to provide at least some level of support to U.S. forces in the form of overflight rights, ground transit of critical war materiel, deployment of Pakistani forces to the border area, etc. However, recent governmental changes within Pakistan make continued cooperation a tenuous prospect, at best.

Opposition victories in parliamentary elections diminished Musharraf's power, and it is highly likely that he is nearing the end of his reign as Pakistan's president. Factions within the parliament are spearheading efforts to "talk" to Islamic militants and to scale back offensive actions in the border region that are designed to put pressure on Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.

It is becoming increasingly clear that if the United States wants to maintain the offensive on militants in the border region, and inside Pakistan, it is going to have to do it without the help of the Pakistani government. That's why we've seen an increase in cross border attacks by U.S. drones and artillery units, and that's why we've seen a more assertive Afghan government threatening to take action if Pakistan fails to control attacks from its territory (knowing full well that the Afghan government is incapable of undertaking offensive operations in the border region, let alone, inside Pakistani territory, and that any action taken would be with heavy assistance from U.S. forces).

What Bush critics have gotten wrong all along is what motivates the President. Of course he's made mistakes. Show me one president who hasn't. But he consistently takes actions he believes to be in the best interest of the country. No matter what you may think of his beliefs, he sticks to them. Ordering stepped up efforts to capture or kill bin Laden reflects his understanding of the changing geopolitical realities in the region. The day will soon be here when we can no longer count on Pakistani assistance in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is better to ramp up our military measures now, rather than later when it will likely be much more difficult, and much more costly.

I, for one, firmly believe (and here is where I catch flak from the Bush-haters) that President Bush cares more about winning in Afghanistan and Iraq than he does about his legacy. If the United States emerges victorious from these two critical battlefields, Islamic terrorism will have been dealt a serious blow and history will be kind to President Bush. If, however, we fail in the current fight, our enemies will be emboldened to strike at us again and the legacy of George W. Bush will not matter at all.

Source: Threats Watch