Now that I have been somewhat called out, I feel that I need to formalize my thoughts.
Going to war with Iraq unilateraly without the support from the community was a mistake.
First off, I am going to make these comments in Red and I am just doing this to be devil's advocate...
The main issue with the Bush administration and, for the most part, the Republican party, is that they don't do anything with the involvement of a community. A committee, yes, but not a community, which is made up of citizens with different opinions and rationale's. This administration does whatever it wants and then uses political bully tactics to carry out its agenda. Sometimes this option works, but for the most part it is a temporary fix on a bleeding artery--which to continue the metaphor, is the American People.
However, no one neither UN, EU, ASEAN or IAEA never claimed that Saddam Hussein should stay in power. I also don't think they said that he needed to removed by the United States.
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 I would add the world. It was a nightmarish PR move for every segment of the global population except for republicans and rednecks. Oh wait, it's just republicans I guess.
2. Increased hostility towards western interests in the region Not to be redundant, but the global market.
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 I think this is true but relations will get better over time as long as we do not leave the area in a mess, which we are more than likely going to do.
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".
Again, this is another nuance for Bushie. He is the one that changed the policy that said that the US could now attack in a preemptive stance in this post 911 world. He changed the policy, our lawmakers voted it in and our media didn't cover it. Ooops. It must have been super bowl weekend.
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. I don't think this is from the attack on Iraq as much as it is that Bush is not a statesman. He turns his nose at order, but not in a rage against the machine way-- He is a the king of the pompous arrogant prick. He is captain of the football team that no one likes.
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. Yes it was. We can agree to disagree, but the fact is that Bushie had his eye on that prize since he did wrong to his Daddy. We all forget to go back to this issue, but we all know its totally true. When Saddam watched the WTC explosion, he said "Oh Shit"--even if he knew about it.
Sanctions did not work and had already killed hundered of thousands of innocent civilians. Oh, okay. So the US cares about innocent lives now? Hmm, well maybe Rwanda or the Congo or the Sudan or AIDS might be better off then--but they aren't. Why? Because we believe that if you cant play with the expensive toys, then there is no game.
The issue was that the United States acted alone. The United States acted alone because they acted out of turn in the chess match of weapons inspections. Bush and his people saw the opportunity to mislead in a time of conflict and turmoil and went for it. When there were still questions raised, he still went. Guns a blazin-- just like in the old West movies. John Wayne would be proud.... This is the problem when you have a failed Texas businessman trying to act like a public servant--you getting him trying to act better than Ronald Regan.
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. Oh, and Bush was just really doing an impressive job of that when he was just in China. 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.
In closing, I would agree with this last statement, if we had someone that was a respected public servant doing this job. But, as Dave Eggers says, "Mistakes were made". You don't just keep moving on with the same plan to find the secret treasure when there isn't any secret treasure. No, we shouldn't leave Iraq, but we should get Bush out and let someone in there that can make some sense of this whole mess.
But, it isn't going to happen. You know it and I know it. Everyone except the families and Michael Moore are being encouraged to just forget about it. It's going to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on until someone just pulls the plug and says that we have done the best we can--there is nothing left and we pull out the troops and there is civil war, thousands die (but they aren't Americans, so we are all happy because maybe the World Series will be on the tele, or maybe Friends will be having a reunion!) and one of the main minority groups takes control (maybe the Kurds) and they make a deal with US for protection and arms....
And Saddam is still on trail.
It's a never ending cycle of bullshit--which is really sad because it involves people losing their lives in something that they don't even think of why they believe what they do, but they believe and that is all that matters....
Sometimes I think we have progressed so far, then I wake up from my dream and pull off my goosedown comforter and the chill of reality sets in....
1 comment:
Tim, I agree with the fact that the current administration is ignorant in it's ways. I had an old professor at WSU who always said that when a states leaders had had too much power for too long it becomes corrupt and decadent. I think this accuratley describes Bushy & Co.
Of course the international community never claimed that the United States should persuit the removal of Saddam Hussien alone. It was however recognized that he needed to leave his throne. And as pointed out earlier a multilateral solution was what was wished for.
You wrote: I think this is true but relations will get better over time as long as we do not leave the area in a mess, which we are more than likely going to do.
And this is why it is so important for the United States to maintain their precense in Iraq until they have actually contributed to Iraq in a way that will be beneficial for Iraq in the next centuries.
Make no mistake, I don't condone nor think that preemptive and unilateral actions are to be accepted ever. It is now clear that the President of the United States misinformed the public and many other government officials regarding the reasons for entering into Iraq. That is why he decided to use 9/11 as an excuse as the UN charter clearly mandates the rights to a proper response and retaliation of attacked upon. In the eyes of Bush he responded to the attack in Manhattan and in DC.
You wrote: "I don't think this is from the attack on Iraq as much as it is that Bush is not a statesman. He turns his nose at order, but not in a rage against the machine way-- He is a the king of the pompous arrogant prick. He is captain of the football team that no one likes."
Europe has since the 2000 election been uncomfortable with Bush by the rudder. However, as much as I would like to claim it to be Bush's fault the reality is that Europe at many times sticks their nose up against the U.S. regarding if it is Bush, Clinton or Joe Sixpack visiting the Eiffel Tower. Europeans love to critisize Americans.
I agree with you that Bush only needed an excuse to invade Iraq and that the reasons used was unclear, at best.
You wrote: "Oh, okay. So the US cares about innocent lives now? Hmm, well maybe Rwanda or the Congo or the Sudan or AIDS might be better off then--but they aren't. Why? Because we believe that if you cant play with the expensive toys, then there is no game."
The fact is still that sanctions is a poor mean of isolation of a country. It rarley works and the civilian population is often the victims. This was not to support Bush in full but to bring up the issue that the 'harmless' way as earlier proposed by the Un did not work. Regarding foreign aid and caring about the civilian population the issue when it comes to AIDS treatment and other medical issues is the fact that even if we give them the pharmaceuticals they still wouldn't know how to use them. It would be like giving a farmer a traktor but not keys or gasoline. One of the major issues with AIDS treatment and other medication is that they need to be taken at certain times of the day to work. As the idea of time has a different meaning in many of the countries this refers to it constitutes a major problem as the medication wouldn't help.
You wrote: "The United States acted alone because they acted out of turn in the chess match of weapons inspections. Bush and his people saw the opportunity to mislead in a time of conflict and turmoil and went for it. When there were still questions raised, he still went. Guns a blazin-- just like in the old West movies. John Wayne would be proud.... This is the problem when you have a failed Texas businessman trying to act like a public servant--you getting him trying to act better than Ronald Regan."
This I agree with. Although I must say that Ronnie listend more to sound advisers than Bush ever has.
"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. Oh, and Bush was just really doing an impressive job of that when he was just in China."
No he didn't. As Washington Post wrote: "Bush meets low expectations in China". And I agree with you, that is why Bush needs to bring in the rest of the world community to help rebuilding Iraq.
Your last comment is more a critique of Americans and the American mentality. As a politician in Bush's shoes I too would utilize this into my advantage. He would be stupid not too. He was elected by ignorant Americans. If the voter base doesn't know better. Don't blame the politician. Blame the voters.
I think that what Bush is trying to do is to prove why the U.S. needs to maintain a presence in Iraq. The civilian population of the U.S. is demanding a withdrawl and so is Michael Moore. But a withdrawl of the troops won't gain any country in the world. And to be honest, Mr. Moore isn't the most factual person out there and more often than seldom likes to toot his own horn. Farenheit was a horrible movie and it's lacking in quality and serious journalism probably increased support for Bush rather than decrease it.
All in all. Countries needs to come together to difuse the tention in the Middle Eastern region. They need to work together and Bush needs to invite them to do so as well. The Bush administration needs to state its case clear and simple. And cannot keep using the old arguments. A good mea culpa would work better for Bush nowadays. However, the European leaders also needs to cast they snobbish old-world attitude aside and realize that working with the United States on this would be to their benefit. It has been to easy for Europe to ask for U.S. support when needed but never returning the favor.
Post a Comment