“Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone.”
Last night, on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, D.C., President Bush addressed the nation. He used the occasion to emphatically defend the invasion of Iraq, even though, as he stated clearly, “Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks.”
The President is correct that withdrawal from Iraq, either phased or immediate, would not end the threat of terrorist attacks against American soil, though that is because Iraq is, or was, utterly tangential to the anti-terror struggle. He is right to pledge that America will see this project through. We may have done the Iraqi people the favor of removing a cruel dictator, but they have paid for this favor with tens of thousands of civilian lives and their entire national infrastructure. To leave now would be to leave promises unfulfilled and a full-scale civil war in our wake. Having attacked them on baseless allegations, we have a moral obligation to repair the damage and secure the country.
Unfortunately, this was the only sentence in the entire address that the President got right. Everything else points to the sad, terrifying truth that we have a deluded madman leading the country.
“The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict,” said the President, and he called it “a war unlike any we have fought before.” It was John Kerry in 2004 who argued that military power alone was the wrong strategy for the War on Terror, and then Vice President Cheney mocked him for wanting a more “sensitive” approach. Yet the President has waged an utterly conventional war, long on firepower and short on strategy, with sensitivity nowhere to be found. “It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century,” Bush elaborated, though apparently he thinks it can be won with bombs and missiles.
Bush described the ideological struggle as “driven by a perverted vision of Islam – a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises dissent.” Sounds a lot like the Republican base, to me: their greatest enemy is the American Civil Liberties Union, they decry “tolerance” as oppressive liberal politically correct double-speak for gay marriage, and disagreeing with the President is tantamount to treason.
Bush said that the Iraq war is related to 9/11 because “the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.” Oh? He’d made no threats against the United States, had no weapons capability and no relationship to Al Qaeda. Hussein wasn’t attacked because he was a threat; he was attacked because he was the easiest target, a household name in America, an unstable despot with deluded ambitions, in charge of a government that would collapse in hours with a ragtag army of ill-trained, ill-equipped, underpaid troops who would dissolve into the dunes as soon as their paychecks stopped. He was attacked precisely because he was the least threatening of all.
The President assailed pre-9/11 foreign policy: “Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. So we changed policies.” Here is the heart of his insanity: if patience and diplomacy don’t get results fast enough, abandon them in favor of mass slaughter and chaos. To win hearts and minds in an ideological conflict, wage conventional warfare with invasion, occupation and cluster bombs. Torture, but call it something else.
“[The war] will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious,” Bush declared. But until the American government chooses to recognize the actual causes for which the terrorists are fighting, instead of lamely asserting “dangerous enemies have declared their intention to destroy our way of life,” and until we recognize that even the best-intentioned American foreign policy has had unforeseen consequences for the middle east, until we begin to respect the wills and cultures of people outside the United States, until we begin to redress the wrongs that have been wrought, we won’t even have taken the first step along Bush’s much-touted path of moderation. It’s one group of extremists against another, and it will never end.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Your last two posts were called "President Bush Gets it Right" and "Why I Won't Vote for Hillary." Are you sure you're okay?
I have come to the conclusion that there is no hope under the Bush administration. Our only hope, and indeed, the only hope of the world, is that cooler, more moderate (by which I mean more capable of diplomacy and adjustment), better-equipped heads will prevail in the next election; that they will be fitted to the task of repairing the grave damage which has been done; and that in the two years remaining of Bush's reign, whatever Powers There Be might stay his hand from further destruction (since the American people are too fat and lazy to take up arms and remove their own evil government).
This is why we need "question time" like the British have. I would love to see Bush face his critics on a weekly basis like Tony Blair has to. One of the sentences of his speech that angered me the most was the one you quote at the beginning of your post: "Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone." I would like Bush to name ONE person who has said that we should leave Iraq so "the terrorists will leave us alone." Straw man, party of one...
“It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century,” Bush elaborated, though apparently he thinks it can be won with bombs and missiles.
sigh ... :(.
--
Not to offer any legitimacy to the way we have carried on in Iraq, but I just accidentally ran into an interesting recent analysis (well, recently rehashed and expanded analysis) about Iraq/uranium/Niger. Almost no'one here will probably agree with it, but it explains coherently what I have never heard coherently from the Administration on this issue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2148995
Whether they are right or wrong, if the Administration could just take a deep breath and offer coherence instead of reacting with mob-driving (or "reacting" with premeditated mob-driving), things would have so much more chance of being solved ... sigh ... . But I suppose the effort would imply to themselves that their assumptions might be incorrect--as opposed to being fundamentally obvious to anyone who isn't Stupid :(.
The author of the above article, Christopher Hitchens, has a reputation as a high-end muckraker (he prefers the appelation "curmudgeon," in one interview) ... and yet he values coherence ... by implication, he hasn't completely given up on other people (and Bushies have).
Sigh again ...
I've read too many point-by-point deconstructions of Hitchens' fantasies to regard him as credible. And how do you expect a coherent defense of a nonsensical foreign policy that seeks to achieve peace through military aggression against people who aren't attacking us?
I don't.
But at least if the Administration would make coherent points they could be argued. (As, I am totally not surprised to hear, Hitchens' points have been over the years.) And then we could leave them behind and move on--at least much more easily, and with the populace understanding what the freaking frabbitz it was all about.
It just frustrates me that this somewhat fringey columnist who I'm pretty sure would not be counted a supporter of the current Administration coherently put together (what I suspect is) their case, when I've never seen such coherence from them.
Post a Comment