Saddam Hussein had to go. A post-9/11 world would not tolerate a tyrant such as Saddam. Certainly no more UN resolutions were needed in order to legitimize this war. And certainly this war is nothing like we were told it would be.
Iraq today is not what the Bush administration promised. A friend of mine once said that Bush did the right thing the wrong way. In a sense, that is very true. The removal of Saddam is a notion an overwhelming majority of people the world-over supported. But removing Saddam is not exactly what we have accomplished in Iraq. What we have produced is an intense struggle between those who want America and Britain to succeed and those who don’t.
This war isn’t part of the war on terrorism. Or least isn’t on the part of the terror that’s responsible for 9/11. There is no question that Saddam was a terrorist and a brutal dictator, but he had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks upon America. So what we have is a confusion of priorities. Instead of securing Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden, Bush decides it’s best to turn our attention towards Iraq. To me this war is a disruption that need not happen like it did.
So this war wages on. Now 21 months, no weapons, 1400 dead and billions of dollars later, Saddam is gone but the war isn’t. It is clear that the Pentagon, the Bush administration, the CIA and Great Britain were wrong about many things concerning Iraq. And during the rush to war many things were overlooked, miscalculated, forgotten, ignored and covered up. Because of all that, Bush’s dash to war has left Iraq in worse shape than it need be.
This war once again has left America with no exit strategy. Bush keeps insisting that elections must take place in order for democracy to take shape. Since we were not greeted in the streets as liberators, our exit strategy has now become elections and some form of a Bush approved democracy. There is no way that Bush thought that in 2005 we would still have soldiers dying in Iraq. Thus, there is no way that this new exit strategy was in the grand plan of the original invasion. So we beef up our deployment, secure some form of an electoral process and then it’s over? I don’t think so.
Elections themselves are not going to create peace or a way out. And what if from those elections a strict Islamic government is elected? Will Bush still call that democracy? Or should we change the definition of democracy to: A form of government strictly imposed and endorsed by George W. Bush?
As with every issue, this administration insists that it is right about the elections and that they must occur. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t occur, I’m just asking how legitimate can a foreign imposed election be? What Bush doesn’t understand is that elections are not the lone ingredient for a democracy and vice versa. Security is in that mix as well and so much more. And just because an election happens does not mean that freedom reigns.
This war falls well short of what Bush guaranteed the world. The fact that we keep referring to it as a war in December of 2004 certainly demonstrates that something isn't right about this war. I don’t know about this war some days.
Merry Christmas to the troops.
December 24, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks Ray:
ReplyDeleteI don't even like Michael Moore. He's about as useless as Bush. Security has everything to do with democracy. Security brings legitimacy and without legitimacy NOTHING is guaranteed.
If freedom is the ability to choose then what if Iraq chooses a Taliban style government, is that freedom? Whoever wins the Iraqi election will be hand selected by Bush. That's not freedom. Iraq is neither free or secure. I pity those who refuse to see the huge mistakes that have been made in this war.
A few thoughts
ReplyDelete1. The elections' legitimacy depends upon what group you talk to. The Shi'ite majority will view these elections as a legitimate means by which to obtain administrative power but the Sunni minority may view this as a means for the Shi'ites to punish and suppress them. I believe our exit stratgy relies upon the successful training of Iraq's military and police forces (something that is presently eluding us) and a consensus among all three major parties on a constitution that protects all of their rights. The elections, by themselves, mean nothing.
2. The War on Terrorism must be viewed more broadly then a response to the 9/11 attacks. Our enemies will establish their base of operations in any country that will accept their values or any country where their government is too weak to stop them and they will use every weapon they can possibly get their hands on in order to hurt us. Successful nation-building and nuclear non-proliferation strategies are absolutely vital if we are to win this war. The terrorists must not acquire weapons of mass destruction nor should they be provided with a base of operations in weak, unstable countries.
Success in Iraq is now, if it had not always been, a vital part of the war on terrorism. Iraq lies between Syria and Iran, two states that sponsor terrorism in the Middle East. If the three major Iraqi factions start a civil war, terrorists may use that opportunity to create a new base of operations where they will plan their next future attack against us.
3. You are correct in so far as President Bush and his administration failed to consider what they will do in a post-Saddam Iraq. The administration failed to provide enough troops for its occupation and it failed to suppress the terrorist-led insurrection from the beginning. One who thought this would not be a piece of cake would have sent more troops in.
Thanks Heretic
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in pure democratic terms that elections themselves mean nothing. George Washington was not elected per se by the American people for his first term. Elections are largely the by-product of democracy, in which I mean elections usually come last. In pure a Bushism sense, he is making elections the primary product of democracy. He is more worried about the end product of democracy than the means to achieve it. This could, and has, proved costly.
You make a good point about legitimacy, but it slightly misses the mark. Legitimacy will depend upon how all groups (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) view the electoral process and its outcome, not just on who you talk to. Legitimacy is the glue that holds all governments together. For example, all groups not just the majority that voted for Bush regard the 2004 elections in America legitimate. Even in 2000, when Bush did not win the popular vote his incumbency, even though selected by the Supreme Court, was viewed legitimate by an overwhelming number of people, even those who didn’t vote for him. So too in Iraq the elections will become legit when those who do not vote for the winning candidate view the process and outcome as fair and democratic- in other words legitimate. So it will take all groups, including foreign countries, recognizing that the elections are legitimate in order for the process to be successful (i.e., Ukraine). Legitimacy is so important for elections and governments.
I also must respectively disagree about viewing Iraq as part of the larger war on terror. Or maybe it’s more accurate to state that I don’t view this war as part of a larger war on terror. As you will note, I supported the removal of Saddam. There was no doubt that he had to go. But Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. And there were no terrorists (besides Saddam) in Iraq before the American invasion. If we must view the war on terror more broadly than a response to 9/11 then we should have invaded about 6 other countries before ever looking towards Iraq. Or we should have exhaustively planned and been better prepared for the choose that we made.
If anything, invading Iraq has prolonged the war on terror by making it a breeding ground for future terrorists. And obviously we were entirely wrong about the WMD. I understand that the war on terror must be broadly defined, but in order to view things with greater scope you must first understand the minimal aspects. I do not think that focusing our attention towards Iraq so soon has anything to do with a greater understanding of the war on terror. And I do not think that this administration critically examines anything outside of American campaigns and elections.
Thank you again for your intelligent comment and contribution. Post here any time.
Hypothetical situation if you will. The Iraqi elections have a huge turnout. Their silence and lack of support for the U.S. was born out of fear of the insurgency or our lack of support in the past, but the turnout is tremendous even at high risk of their very lives. The elections are deemed fair by the international community and hard line religious figures lose by the vast majority of votes. Iraq becomes the envy of the majority throughout the region. Iraq joins the world community as a peaceful and free society. We shall see in the near future and I truly hope this will be the case. But, if this is the final result, the end analysis will probably be to most, well that is great, but Bush is still a jerk.
ReplyDeleteT.S.
I hope so TS, I hope so.
ReplyDelete