Government must drop partisan politics when it comes to national security

In an opinion piece for a major newspaper, a White House official lashed out at critics of the Obama administration's ability to defend against terrorism. Steve Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, wrote in a USA Today op-ed on Tuesday, "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

---

Does Brennan truly think criticizing government's self-admitted "shortcomings" and "systemic failures" constitutes serving the goals of al Qaeda? And with the spate of al Qaeda attacks on our homeland, our concerns are anything but "unfounded fear-mongering." What Brennan sees as attempts to score "cheap political points" might be more accurately viewed as Americans expressing unease with poor handling of the War on Terror. His sub-heading reads "Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad." But the administration certainly didn't disrupt the Fort Hood jihadist massacre. To be fair, the shooter served under both Obama and Bush - despite being a card-carrying member of Soldiers of Allah (literally). While the government can't disrupt every attack, officials should at least correctly identify the reason the attack happened in the first place. In this respect, the government failed miserably. The 86-page report on Ft. Hood released by the Pentagon following the attack avoided any mention of the jihadist ideology that appears to be the motivation behind the attack. But the report did mention "animal rights," "disgruntled employees," and "white supremacy" as factors in terrorist attacks. I ask Mr. Brennan: Does the administration's whitewashing of the jihadist attack on Fort Hood help or hurt al Qaeda? As to ignoring religious or ideological motivations, both administrations are to blame. However, the memo issued initially by the Bush administration barring the use of words like "jihadist" or "Islamic terrorist" while ignoring ideology became government policy under the Obama administration. As to Brennan's assertion that the Obama administration is taking the fight abroad, their decision to bring foreign terrorist suspects to U.S. courtrooms - while announcing troop withdrawal dates in Afghanistan - does more to bring the fight to American soil. For reasons we can only speculate, this administration decided to close an ideal detention facility in Cuba, opting instead for locations within the United States. Throughout our history, the U.S. has tried foreign agents in military tribunals, and subsequently executed those who were convicted. According to the rules of war, terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) may be shot on sight. But the Obama administration gives foreign nationals suspected of committing acts of war on our soil access to the very Constitution they seek to destroy. By doing so, this administration has greatly increased the security threat to Americans, not lowered it. And to what gain? Our enemies will only view this as another concession and become further emboldened. Brennan brings up the matter of Richard Reid, the al Qaeda shoe bomber who attempted to blow up an airliner in December, 2001. He claims that since Reid was Mirandized minutes after the plane landed, Americans should have given equal criticism to the Bush administration. But it took years to for the U.S. to create a tribunal system for our enemies that satisfied Constitutional requirements. And the very lawyers who filed legal challenges against the system are now working for the Justice Department. Brennan also stated that while military tribunals have only netted three convictions, "hundreds" of terrorists have been convicted "in the criminal justice system." President Obama first mentioned that federal supermax prisons held "hundreds of convicted terrorists" in May, 2009 when he announced his plans to close the military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. Since then, other members of the administration have parroted the hundreds figure, with estimates ranging up to 300. For months, Senator Jon Kyl (R - Ariz.) has repeatedly tried to get an answer from the Justice department as to the number of convictions and whether they compare to terrorists at Guantanamo. The Holder Justice Department keeps repeating the "300" figure, and they keep putting off Sen. Kyl. Does Mr. Brennan think that granting al Qaeda's foreign combatants access to our Constitution and legal system rights helps or hurts al Qaeda? I do agree with Brennan when he says that "politics should never get in the way of national security." But national security has taken a back seat to politics under this administration.

As Brennan states when referring to fear-mongering, "Terrorists aren't 100 feet tall." While I would like to know who said they were, it is worth noting that al Qaeda has killed thousands of American civilians in the last ten years. In the case of Reid and Abdulmutallab, we were very close to losing two more planes. And the frequency of terrorist attacks on our homeland is increasing. That's not fear-mongering Mr. Brennan, that's the truth. And if the truth is hurting your political agenda, perhaps it's the agenda that needs correcting, not the critics. The victims of terrorist attacks under a Republican president are just as dead as those under a Democrat. Rather than fighting about which party is "serving the goals of al Qaeda," government could better protect America by uniting both parties to defeat al Qaeda. [Originally published at The US Report]