It's the permanent war on terrorism, stupid
Administration counting on climate of fear to pave way for re-election


Photo op for Election 2004 campaign advertisement -- Take 1:
On Thursday, May 1, President Bush lands on board a
homeward bound aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln. At
9 P.M. EST, with the carrier's 5,000 crewmembers as backdrop,
the president announces to the nation that the military phase of
the Invasion of Iraq is over.

International terrorist attacks declined by 44% in 2002 -- from
355 attacks in 2001 to 199 attacks in 2002, according to a
report published April 30 by the U.S. State Department. The
report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism: 2002" pointed out that
the number of people killed by terrorists declined to 725, down
from the 3,295 people killed in 2001, including the 9/11
attacks. This report did not record the number of dead civilians
killed by U.S. bombing raids in Afghanistan during the past
two years.

President George W. Bush's re-election to a second term will not
depend on Florida re-counts, hanging chads, the United States
Supreme Court, or the state of the economy. The Republican
Party will retain control of the White House if the president
continues to persuade the majority of the American people that
the war on Terrorism must be pursued at all cost -- both at home
and abroad -- and the mainstream media continues to uncritically
parrot this line.

The Bush Administration claims that the U.S. is well on its way
toward winning the war against terrorism. But, despite highly
trumpeted "victories" -- the routing of the Taliban and al-Qaeda
from Afghanistan and the overthrow Saddam Hussein's Baath
regime -- it is cautioning that success in the war against terrorism
will be measured in years or decades, not months.

A White House document titled "Securing the Homeland,
Strengthening the Nation" maintains that the threat of terrorism
is "an inescapable reality of life in the 21st century. It is a
permanent condition to which America and the entire world must
adjust." If this thinking dominates the political debate as
America approaches the 2004 presidential election, the
Democrats' hope of breathing new life into "It's the economy
stupid" will fail to achieve the impact it had twelve years ago.

President Bush's approval rating hovers at slightly over 70
percent -- twenty points lower than his father's numbers twelve
years ago after the end of Gulf War I. Support for Bush, while
widespread, has little depth. His advisors recognize that the
numbers could easily slip when the
welcome-home-the-troops-pageantry fades and people turn their
attention to a severely debilitated economy. However, if the
administration can set the agenda for Election 2004, it will not be
the economy but national security issues heading the list.

Terrorist attacks: Real or perceived

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon, fear of another terrorist attack has become a
central concern for many Americans. Other than the anthrax
attacks in 2001, however, the US has experienced only a series of
false alarms: Terrorist attacks on bridges, water systems,
transportation hubs, and nuclear power plants hasn't happened;
the use of chemical or biological weapons hasn't materialized;
there have been no "dirty bombers" or suicide bombers; and the
much-hyped smallpox epidemic hasn't occurred.

With each real or perceived threat, Secretary of Homeland
Security Tom Ridge, in consultation with the Homeland Security
Council, ratcheted-up the Homeland Security Advisory System.
Elevating security alerts from yellow (significant risk of terrorist
attacks) to orange (high risk of terrorist attacks) sustains public
anxiety even if subsequent information proves the threat was
over-hyped; witness the near-panic atmosphere caused by the
Duct Tape & Plastic Sheeting Advisory earlier this year. When
the advisory system is cranked up, polls find Americans
becoming more fearful that an attack is in the offing. Imagine the
response if there actually were another foreign-initiated terrorist
attack on American soil.

The war on Terrorism has become the centerpiece of the Bush
presidency. Spending on Homeland Security -- which some
critics claim has been too modest -- is well into the double digit
billions. An April 16 "Department of Homeland Security FY '03
Supplemental Funding Fact Sheet," announced that the
President had "authorized an additional $6.71 billion for the
Department of Homeland Security to support Departmental
functions and domestic counter-terrorism operations that have
been activated as a part of Operation Liberty Shield at the start
of the war in Iraq." Approximately two thirds of the money went
"to offset the costs of Operation Liberty Shield" and the balance
was given to the airline industry "to help with costs associated
with enhancing the capabilities of the airline industry to combat
terrorism."

Operation Liberty Shield was initiated prior to the invasion of
Iraq because "terrorists will attempt multiple attacks against U.S.
and Coalition targets worldwide in the event of a U.S.-led military
campaign against Saddam Hussein. A large volume of reporting
across a range of sources, some of which [my italics] are highly
reliable, indicates that Al-Qaida probably would attempt to
launch terrorist attacks against U.S. interests claiming they were
defending Muslims or the 'Iraqi people' rather than Saddam
Hussein's regime." The invasion came and went, and there have
been no terrorist attacks.

One day later, the Department of Homeland Security's
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, aka FEMA,
announced $165 million in grants to state and local governments
to help them "better prepare to respond to all hazards
preparedness activities and emergency management."
Thousands of teachers and healthcare workers have received
layoff notices across the county and unemployment continues
to rise, yet the flow of money for homeland security projects
continues apace.

Terrorism 'experts' speak

Recently, Jonathan Tal, President of the Homeland Security
Research Corporation, told me that "It is not possible to defeat
terrorism. Terrorism takes a couple of loonies in a basement
putting together a bomb or some other device. We can gain a
measure of defense against terrorists but we can not ever be
terrorism-proof."

David McIntyre, Deputy Director of the ANSER Institute for
Homeland Security and former Dean of the National War
College, writes in an Institute commentary titled "Can We
Breathe Now? Homeland Security for the Long Haul" that in the
same way that "crime, or disease or traffic accidents" are part of
the daily fabric of American life, so too must awareness that
"some degree of terrorist threat... be a permanent part" of the
lives of all Americans.

McIntyre claims that threats from "future extremist groups...
remain only one lucky shot away from a very public success that
they could trumpet worldwide to demonstrate that 'terror is back.'
We must continue to root them out, one at a time, all over the
world. This is going to take a while.

"Simultaneous with addressing threats from outside the United
States, we must also be ready for disaffected domestic terrorists
to act out their rage at society from time to time. Where
international terrorists have pointed the way, domestic criminals
will surely follow. We will have to secure our complex society
from disruption by twisted insiders for years to come... We need
to stay the course in the broad range of security improvements
envisioned and begun by our business and elected leaders
nation-wide."

Both McIntyre and Tal are staking their economic futures on the
growth potential of the Homeland Security industry, and it is
against those interests that their remarks should be weighed.
But, whether you agree with their assessments or not, they are
among the new gurus of anti-terrorism staking out the terrain for
the administration.

Since 9/11, a timid Democratic Party -- combined with a media
absorbed by the climate of fear -- has enabled the Bush
administration to initiate domestic policy initiatives eviscerating
civil liberties and a foreign policy agenda built on unilateral
pre-emptive strikes. Enhancing law enforcement's ability to
combat terror on the home front and insuring America's "safety"
from international "threats" has been wrapped in the garb of
fighting the war on terrorism.

Pundits who envision a repeat of 1992 in 2004 -- when George
H.W. Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton -- are way off track.
You'll remember that in 1991, President Bush's popularity after
the Persian Gulf War soared to Himalayan heights. At the time it
seemed inconceivable that he would lose the upcoming
presidential election. Yet a year later, with the country mired in
recession, "It's the economy stupid" resonated with voters and
Bush suffered a humiliating defeat.

At the time, the Cold War was over, 9/11 had not yet occurred
and there was no talk of a protracted war on terrorism. This time
around, however, the Bush Administration intends that the war
on terrorism be foremost in the minds of voters when they enter
the booth in November 2004.

Preparedness exercises

The ANSER Institute's David McIntyre recommends "we must
run preparedness exercises" to help "those who must prevent
[terrorist] attacks and respond to them." The media, many of
whom remain intoxicated from being embedded with U.S. and
British combat troops during the invasion of Iraq, will play a
significant role as the "watchdog" over terrorism preparedness,
"observing whether state and local officials are exercising
frequently and whether the proper federal and private agencies
are involved."

Imagine enterprising reporters standing in front of fire houses,
power plants, water systems, transportation centers, and
warning the public that these places remain unprotected from a
terrorist attack. From Boise to Boston, Miami to Medford, the
public will be traumatized, resulting in calls for more money and
resources to be spent on homeland security.

As the hoopla and administration-and-media-induced
intoxication with "Operation Iraqi Freedom" fades (and if there
hasn't been an invasion of Iran or Syria) Democrats will attempt
to turn the nation's attention to the economy. But if, as many
economists suspect, the administration's economic plan fails to
stimulate a stalled economy, it still retains its most persuasive
hole card, embodied in that old saw about "not switching
horses" -- in this case Commanders in Chief -- in the middle of a
permanent war on terrorism.

When the Bush team marches into New York City in early
September 2004 to hold its convention -- and hangs around to
get the most out of the third anniversary of the 9/11 attacks --
the stage will be set for a short campaign built around national
security issues. If the voting public continues to buy into the
permanent war on terrorism, no matter how bad the economy
gets George W. Bush will be re-elected.