30 November 2005

The mark of good leadership is admitting when you are wrong.
Again, the Bush administration has gone out of its way to deny the fact that going to war in Iraq was a bad decision. How can it be a good one? Where in all of this does anyone see a positive result? Saddam Hussain is in a trail that will certainly never end--if it ever begins. Even if it does end and he is shot and killed--does that bring justice to the thousands of people that have lost their lives?
No, of course not.
But we still have Bush in the White House, still trying to con everyone into believing that this war has some echo of justification in it.
It makes our country look terrible. People do not see this as a strength--they see it in the same way that all men are when they are lost and they refuse to stop and ask someone for directions.

I am obviously sad today.
I don't know the answer either--but it is not to tell people that we are not leaving Iraq until everything is in its right place--because it isn't our country. We shouldn't be in the business of telling Saddamn Hussein that he can not invade Kuwait and then invade his country. Its a game of Chess for fools.
We, the foolish American people, elected this king of fools to keep us Checkmated in a world that we do not belong.
Enough rhetoric.
Posted by Timothy Hogg at 8:16 AM

1 comment:

CBO said...

Tim,

Going to war with Iraq unilateraly without the support from the community was a mistake. However, no one neither UN, EU, ASEAN or IAEA never claimed that Saddam Hussein should stay in power.

However, the problems created by the U.S. is that the unilateral pre-emptive attack opened up a whole lot of worms. The U.S. got lucky as to defeating the Red Guard. No one expected them to drop their loyalty towards the regime once tanks began to role over the boarder. The issues created was:
1. Increased hostility towards U.S. interests in the region
2. Increased hostility towards western interests in the region
3. An increased tension within the Middle East which might spreat through the Arab world towards Muslim states boardering Russia and to Turkey and the EU
4. Pre-emptive attacks can only be considered as justified by the attacker. This opened up the issue of making it legitimate for other countries in attacking who they consider the enemy. Which is the rhetoric that Pakistan and Israel has been using after 9/11 in "their fight against terrorism".
5. The attack also created tention between the U.S. and the EU and the United States lost much of its credability in the international community. Something that in the end is dangerous as the U.S. still has the most powerfull military arsenal.

However, with this said I wanted to point out that attacking Iraq was by itself not wrong. Sanctions did not work and had already killed hundered of thousands of innocent civilians. The issue was that the United States acted alone.

But, the in order to create som stability and for the United States to gain trust in the future from the world community they need to stay in Iraq but work closer with the world community. One of the major concerns regardging Iraq was that the U.S. would follow suit and leave once body bags started to pile up in Dover. But a political administration cannot and should never cave for public opinion when it comes to Security and Foregin policy. The public opinion changes depending on the news cycle. If politicians would listen to the public in these matters there would be troops sent to every atrocity committed everyday all over the world. And not even the United States has the resources to do so.

5:49 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)