To say that a lesson is immutable is to say that the object
of the lesson has not changed. This is what John Bolton is implying in the
article he wrote under the title: “The immutable lessons of 9/11,” published on
September 10, 2016 in the Pittsburgh Tribune.
In fact, Bolton begins the article by saying that terrorism,
which is the object of the lesson, took on a different look in the eyes of
Americans since September 11, 2001 (referred to as 9/11). But he goes on to
explain that the phenomenon has been in existence since long before that.
In his view, 9/11 changed the perception people had of the
attacks on America and the West, from being a problem of law enforcement to one
that requires a response befitting an act of war. He says that the ideology
underlying the phenomenon is one and the same even though it comes in many
variations, ranging from the Shia version of Ayatollah Khomeini to the Sunni
version of the Islamic State.
This makes the phenomenon difficult to counter, he says, but
President George W. Bush knew what to do. He launched the war that drove the
Taliban and al-Qaida from power in Afghanistan, he tells us. Beyond that,
America exerted efforts that uncovered terrorists before they struck, strove to
counter their ideology, and worked to eliminate the spread of Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMDs). Bolton does not say who came after Bush, and accomplished
all that. This, however, does not mean that the fight is over, he hastens to
add, because there are states that sponsor terrorism, and they may someday be
inclined to transfer WMDs to terrorists.
This being a far fetched idea, considering that a sponsor
who would do such a thing will immediately be wiped from the face of the earth,
you begin to wonder where Bolton is heading. The mystery deepens when he goes
on to say there are strategic rivals to America who sense “the possibility of
American weakness and withdrawal.” Because of this, he goes on to say, they are
readying themselves “to take advantage of any sign of hesitancy.” You still
cannot decipher what he is getting at.
He confuses you even more by admitting that “the Bush
administration made mistakes after 9/11.” Okay, but what does that mean? Here
is what it means: It means that the fight is not over, and victory was never
accomplished, he ascertains. He further explains: “We were the victims of
aggression, and the aggressors were (and are) still in the field.” Translation:
do not stand down, America. On the contrary, mobilize and carry on with the war
till the end.
You get that point even if you don't agree with it. But one
thing continues to puzzle you. Why did Bolton feel the need to “disparage” his
idol W. Bush ... however mildly he did so? The truth is that he did it to allay
the reader's suspicion that he – John Bolton – is writing a partisan piece and
not a historical piece. This done, he drops the bombshell: “Today, however,
after nearly eight years of President Barack Obama and his media allies, it
feels as though we have returned to Sept. 10, 2001”.
From this point on, John Bolton does to his thesis what Bin
Laden did to the Twin Towers. The bombshell explodes as he meant it to, but the
casualty is none other than his own thesis. It disintegrates like a towering
inferno into a pile of debris. You feel the intensity of his partisanship when
you see the suggestion he makes to the effect that Barack Obama and his
possible successor, Hillary Clinton, are to blame for everything that went
wrong in America and for America. Anyway you look at it, this is partisan
politics, and there is much more.
To be convinced of that, look at this piece of twisted
logic: “Obama refuses to talk about the ideology of radical Islam even though
more Muslims have been victimized by this theocratic nightmare than non-Muslims
… Obama continues to live in a parallel universe”.
Hey, look here, John! The terrorists have at times
victimized Christians in Syria, in Libya and in Europe. Does this mean they are
converting to Christianity? Also, are you saying that because I made this
observation, I continue to live in a parallel universe?
I ask him these questions because I know that despite the
appearance, he is not too far gone to respond rationally. Thus, I venture to
say he was enough “on alert” to realize that it will do him no good to try and
whip up the hysteria among the public.
Instead, he used the measured term “on alert” to urge the
readers to be mindful of what threatens them. He also makes the suggestion that
voting for Hillary Clinton on Nov. 8 would be as disastrous as a terror attack.