9/11 and the politics of terror

NEW YORK - The terrorists surely did not intend it to be so when they selected September 11, 2001 to carry out their evil plot, but this date has come to mean much more than a painful memorial, and a date expressing unity and patriotism: It has come to serve as a tool in the hands of politicians. This is likely to continue until the end of George W. Bush's tenure in office.

It is a date conveniently positioned in early fall, about two months before the biannual elections. In 2002 these were midterm elections that favored the party of the commander-in-chief in wartime. In 2004 Bush managed to beat John Kerry, and the memory of the crashing Twin Towers also helped to do that. And here we are, in 2006, and Bush is once more exploiting the date that has benefited his standing the most. Appropriately, the dominant event surrounding the fifth anniversary is media-related and has to do with perceptions: It is the fight over the ABC television movie on 9/11.

ABC invested a year in a huge production of its docudrama "The Path to 9/11" and this loathsome genre - drama that impersonates a documentary but allows itself the right to invent "facts" - again proved successful in stirring controversy. So much so that the most senior figures rallied to prevent its airing, or at the very least, to force the network to alter the problematic scenes.

It is the members of the previous administration - Bill Clinton, secretary of state Madeleine Albright, national security adviser Sandy Berger and many others - who were shocked by the way they were presented as being responsible for the many years of failure to deal with the threat posed by Al-Qaida. They were rightly shocked; their responsibility is sufficiently great without having to invent dialogue and situations. This is a question of personal prestige, but even more, a matter that seriously affects the party. The airing of such a mini-series, on the eve of elections, may strengthen among voters precisely the image that the rival party would like to bolster: that the Democrats are "soft" on terrorism.

The first part of the mini-series was due to be broadcast Sunday, having undergone changes following intense pressure on the network. However, despite the changes, the issue has left a bitter taste in many peoples' mouths. Last week the Bush administration published its "updated" strategy for fighting terrorism, which lacks real substance; the magazines are full of articles titled "What would have happened if ...?" and "How will 9/11 be viewed 20 years from now?" - the kind of pieces written at a time when there is nothing important left to tell.

In any case, the questions worth dealing with do not concern the past but the future, and the discourse surrounding them is still at the stage of provocation, once what was self-evident has already been investigated and published to death. In the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, John Mueller, a professor of political science at Ohio State University, writes that "the threat presented within the United States by Al-Qaida is greatly exaggerated."

In the September issue of The Atlantic, James Fallows suggests a new strategy for the war against terror: Declare the war over. In any case, the worst thing terrorists can do to America is draw it into an exaggerated, irrational response to the threat they pose. Of course, Iraq is an obvious example, but so is the wiretapping program.

This is September 11 five years later: a political tool in the hands of the Bush administration, and a cushion for patronizing pronouncements for its opponents. The war against terror is not what it used to be - and it is sometimes hard to believe those who are running it. During the campaign that led to his election as president in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower sat in a television broadcasting station and allowed his face to be made up. "Look at me now," the make-up artist told Eisenhower, "I used to be a paratrooper who served under your command in France, and look at what I'm doing now. And you - you used to be a five-star general - and now you're just a politician!"

Guest

The weekly guests are back after a long August recess. This week we are proud to have Charles Bronfman, one of the leading voices in Jewish life in North America answering questions on Jewish continuity, Israel-Diaspora relations and more. Readers, as is our habit, are welcomed to sent questions too rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.

Factor

The Hotline "On The Download is doing an occasional Q&A series interviewing politech players and strategists. Our first Q&A is with Shmuel Rosner, the Chief U.S. Correspondent for Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel. Rosner created an online ranking system to grade the '08 presidential candidates on how friendly they are to Israel."

Here's part of the interview:

How do you think Israel will play into the 2008 presidential elections?

I don't think "Israel" will play a very big role in the elections - however, the Middle East in general definitely will. The issues at play will include some of great significance for Israel: how to deal with nuclear Iran, radical Islam, rouge states like Syria, fragile regimes like Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority etc.

What would change your prediction?

Many things could change my prediction: another war between Israel and one of its neighbors, the emergence of new policies aimed to solve the Palestinian problem, a growing sense of isolationism in the U.S., a growing existential threat from Iran and more.

Has anyone done this kind of ranking system now or is doing so currently? Why is yours better?

This new project is the only one of its kind I'm familiar with, and I believe it to be somewhat revolutionary. I think we'll see more rankings like this coming from other countries in the future. Constructing a balanced ranking system - though not perfect - was a major concern for us. We chose 8 experts, both ex-officials and academicians, and tried to make sure that they represent both right and left. The main challenge for each of the panelists and for us is to define what "good for Israel" means - and the different definitions and beliefs of different panel members forces us not only to rank the candidates, but also to explain to our readers the mechanism with which the panel reached its conclusions.

Mid-term

Let me also remind you that the Mid-term Diary is updated almost daily, and that you can send me suggestions and links to items you think should be included is this daily compilation on the Mid-terms, the Mideast, Israel and the Jewish voters.