No way out

Could the September 11 attacks have been prevented? Raising this question a year or two ago would have been branded as conspiratorial and paranoid, not to mention unpatriotic. But now, portions of the truth are being revealed to the public and people are now beginning to wonder. How much did the government actually know about the threat of an Al-Qaida attack? How did it react to the available information? What could have possibly been done to stop those 19 hijackers from committing their terrible crime?

Thanks to the Sept. 11 Commission, which investigates the terrorist attack, the public is learning some pretty interesting facts about how this government acted. Apparently, there was a lot of intelligence indicating the intention of Osama bin Laden to perpetrate terrorist attacks in the United States. In August 6, 2001, President Bush received a presidential daily briefing, or PDB, entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." President Bush, who was enjoying one of the longest presidential vacations ever at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, read the following warning in that report: "FBI information ... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."

That seems to me like a pretty clear warning. True, the reports (as far as we know) did not pinpoint the exact location of the attacks, or the date. But maybe some steps could have been taken to heighten airport alerts, or something of that sort. That, of course, does not mean that the Sept. 11 attacks could have been prevented. After all, these terrorists were "determined" as the report states. But it makes you wonder whether the government reacted appropriately to the information it had received.

Nobody is blaming the Bush administration for Sept. 11, but we need to ask tough questions in order to get a clear picture of what happened in the months leading to September 11, 2001. It is essential that we know exactly what kind of information the government had and how it reacted to it. Only then will the Sept. 11 commission be able to make the necessary recommendations that will help the government deal more effectively with similar threats.

It is certainly important to find out about what happened before Sept. 11. But it is more urgent to reassess what is happening right now. How has the administration responded to the threat of terrorism? Instead of concentrating all of its forces to dismantle al Qaida and eliminating the root causes of terrorism, the Bush administration has been caught up in a huge mess -- a wholly unnecessary huge mess. The war in Iraq is costing billions and billions to U.S. taxpayers, it is taking the lives of increasing numbers of Americans, and it is undermining the fight against terrorism. The United States has lost its credibility in the eyes of the world, and it has alienated valuable friend and allies. In only a few months, Bush has been accomplished what Saddam only dreamed of -- it has succeeded in uniting Shiites and Sunnis in their hatred of the U.S. occupation.

As Iraqis rebel throughout their country, Bush insists that his administration will meet the June 30th deadline to transfer sovereignty back to Iraqi hands. The June 30th deadline is unrealistic and arbitrary. It was designed in Washington for electoral purposes and it completely ignores what is actually going on there. Of course, the transfer of sovereignty is only symbolic because the U.S. will effectively control the fate of this country. However, if the U.S. does not provide the necessary military and financial support to the emerging government, Iraq will surely spiral into a civil war, in which the different ethnic groups will fight each other for control. The situation in Iraq can surely get much worse than this and it would be an enormous defeat for U.S. foreign policy to leave Iraq worse than the U.S. found it.

The U.S. should not transfer sovereignty until there is stability in the country. If that means that the June 30th deadline will not be met, so be it. It is far more important to get the job done right in Iraq (if that is at all possible at this point) than it is to show the resolve of this administration to meet its own deadlines. It was not necessary to go into Iraq. But now, whether we like it or not, the U.S. is there. The U.S. must make sure the new Iraq does not collapse. That means it will have to send more troops, spend more money, and stay there for many more years. There is no easy way out and no illusory deadlines will change that fact. Bush, and the rest of the country, will have to pay dearly for this mistake.

Rodrigo De Haro is a senior majoring in International Relations. He can be reached at deharo@tuftsdaily.com.