But that is a sophomoric--and obtuse--analysis. The Post ignores crucial elements of Bush's GWOT that looked far beyond the threat from al-Qaeda to seeing endless threats from militants, revolutionaries and "rogue states" around the world.
The core problem of Bush's GWOT wasn't that it sought to neutralize al-Qaeda's murderers but that it used Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda as an excuse to implement murderous strategies against people who had nothing to do with al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks, for instance, the bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Beyond forcing "regime change" in Iraq and seeking it in other "axis of evil"- countries, Bush's GWOT envisioned an endless "war" against insurgents from Colombia to the Philippines to Central Asia that would involve sending U.S. Special Forces and CIA hit teams to capture or kill troublesome foreign leaders and militants. Bush even vowed to continue this fight until he had eliminated "evil" itself.
Indeed, by 2002, Bush's GWOT had become the justification for administration lawyers to craft legal opinions that asserted that the President, as Commander in Chief, possessed "plenary"- or total power for the duration of the never-ending "war on terror."
Justice Department lawyers like John Yoo tossed away U.S. constitutional rights almost casually. The GWOT meant scrapping habeas corpus, the ancient right to challenge arbitrary arrests. Out, too, went the First, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Sixth and the Eighth Amendments. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's "How Close the Bush Bullet."] (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
The needs of the GWOT took precedence over U.S. treaties and other legal commitments, opening the door to the torture of detainees in U.S. custody and to Bush's assertion that he could wage war without congressional consent.
New Direction
So, Obama's narrower strategy of defeating al-Qaeda and its allies in a regional conflict is not just semantics. It represents a significant repudiation of Bush's grandiose GWOT, albeit not a totally new direction.
There are residual components from Bush's approach that have carried over into the Obama administration, such as excessive claims of state secrets and long-term detentions in Afghanistan as well as the year-long phase-out of the Guantanamo prison and the three-year pull-out from Iraq.
The Post's neocons also find themselves sharing common ground with some American leftists in treating Obama's approach as essentially the same as Bush's. Their reasons, however, differ.
The Post wants to pretend that Obama is vindicating the Bush/neocon position by keeping its substance although changing its name. Leftists are pushing the line that Obama is no different from Bush, that Obama is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
But neither position recognizes that Obama has abandoned key components of Bush's GWOT, particularly its infinite nature, both in time and space. Obama has transformed the GWOT into a much more focused and conventional conflict, targeting a specific terrorist group and its allies.
By narrowing the scope of the conflict, Obama also has implicitly rejected Bush's corollary, that the GWOT requires a suspension of American liberties. Neither of these shifts is insignificant--and to ignore them is obtuse.
[For more on the Washington Post's neocon tendencies, see Consortiumnews.com's "WPost Is a Neocon Propaganda Sheet."]
