Never before has a U.S. president been so dependent on the intellectual sluggishness of the American people. To think that this generation boasts hoards of fools lulled by rhetorical idiocy, like ‘stay the course’ because withdrawing now would ‘reduce the morale of the troops’ and ‘bring the war back home,’ is nothing less than depressing. Not only are these insinuations not grounded on fact, they aren’t even grounded on logic.
‘Bringing the war back home’: All this tells me is that Bush should really consider hiring new think tanks, because apparently his ran out of ideas. Al Qaida is an international terror organization with no central command structure. American presence in Iraq does nothing to forestall attacks on U.S. soil from terrorists in Britain. If anything, it would be strategically advantageous to attack the United States while its defense forces, money and resources are abroad. It also appears the president and his automaton loyalists seem to be suggesting that Homeland Security is susceptible. Yes, it probably is under his watch, but advertising that fact as a sound bite is willing it to happen. As Bill Maher has said, the smartest thing Americans can do is say, ‘Hey, I’m not with stupid.’
‘Reducing the morale of the troops’: This is truly a funny one. How do you think the morale of a U.S. soldier is when a suicide bomber blows himself up 20 feet from him, killing six members of his unit and leaving him paralyzed and in shock? Let’s not forget about his ‘morale’ when he’s taken back for medical treatment in a rat-infested, fungus-draped hole in the wall. Cher (yes, the pop star) financed shock absorbent helmet pads for the troops because the government refused to, and soldiers kept dying from the impact of bomb blasts. I’m sorry, what were you saying about morale?
Now for the $1 million question: Why did we go into Iraq to begin with? Well, we know it wasn’t because of WMDs. It wasn’t a response to 9/11, nor was it to save the world from a ‘fascist dictator,’ because then you’d have to explain why the United States consistently supported the ‘evil dictator’ during the height of his crimes, including the Kurdish genocide in 1988. There is nothing honorable, much less justifiable, about this war ‘ it’s the same old tale of greed, absolute power and hegemony, but rationalized with different language.
I’d be less inclined to condemn this motivation if it manifested in military action that was quick, cost-effective and with minimal long-term risk. Granted that Southwest Asia is a strategically vital geographical location in terms of primary energy resources (i.e. fuel oil, petrol, liquid petrol), trade paths and proximity to other countries like China and India, but there are other ways to establish dominance than by destabilizing a country, leaving and moving on to its neighbor.
The first President Bush executed military operations in the region in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, which boasted a nice fraction of the world’s crude oil, and threatened Saudi Arabia’s Hama oil fields (the country’s most valuable resource). Bush I acted through the U.N., passing a series of Security Council Resolutions (notably, Resolution 678) that were in essence diplomatic formulations authorizing the use of force. He then assembled a coalition of 34 countries who supported the United States either with direct military or financial assistance, enabling the coalition forces to exceed Iraq in man-power. The mission was successful in completing its objective and sustained minimal cost, casualties and time duration.
If you lose $5,000 gambling in Atlantic City, should you then gamble your life savings in the hope of getting it back, or should you cut your losses and move on? Neither option is all that appealing, but the latter is obviously your best bet. Why doesn’t Bush II get this? Is it because of lousy stubborn judgment, or an underlying agenda relating to the New World Order?