Bush just doesn't get it
I am glad that the Republican Party is finally coming out as a group who's whole convention, and whole campaign, is a series of misleading, false statements, and ad hominem attacks about Senator Kerry.
It is funny how many Republicans talk about how September 11th “changed everything” when they don’t even take their own rhetoric as advice. Life and wars were supposed to be different: the Afghanistan war started to show this difference in terms of using Special Forces and asymmetrical nature of the conflict. Then the President made a grave mistake: he invaded Iraq. President Bush invaded Iraq under false (and ever changing) pretenses, and then once we were there, so screwed up the liberation, that we had to become occupiers. Let me say this again, the lack of planning on the part of the DoD and the President has turned what could have been a liberation of a country from a tyrant into an occupation with no end in sight. This is your fault alone - the last time I checked, Senator Kerry was not in charge of war planning and reconstruction.
Look at what President Bush has advocated in terms of military use of power: Afghanistan, Iraq, the so-called “Axis of Evil”, the continued support for anti-ballistic missile system, the list goes on. All are vestiges of the reliance of nation-states as the primary adversaries to the US, and the world. Nation-state sponsored terrorism was (and still to some degree) exists around the world, but it has morphed, evolved. September 11th shows this evolution. What the Bush camp doesn’t (or can’t) realize is that terrorism, much like corporations, has gone transnational. Terrorist groups no longer need the primary backing of a state apparatus to operate. al Qaeda was started, and is currently funded, by Osama bin Laden without direct aid from any nation-state. This is why they could move from the Sudan to Saudi Arabia, to Pakistan and Afghanistan without diminishing its strength or ability to fight. All they needed was a network of banks, private backers, and back country roads to move in and out of territories both sympathetic and hostile to their cause. No one state has had to help al Qaeda to survive. What about Afghanistan, and the war to take out the Taliban? Well, al Qaeda controlled the Taliban, and the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. al Qaeda supported the nation-state (Afghanistan) which allowed al Qaeda to operate freely - Afghanistan was a terrorism sponsored state. The President invading Afghanistan, while I had doubts, was the right move because al Qaeda was Taliban was Afghanistan.
Iraq, on the other hand, was not the same as Afghanistan. Saddam was a bad man, who at some point in the last 10 years had chemical and biological weapons, but had no advanced nuclear capabilities. Iraq had no long range missiles to deliver the non existent nuclear payload to America. Vice President Cheney loves to talk about Iraq’s nuclear arsenal, but his speech he talked about Syria (which is another issue). Iraq was not a direct threat to American’s lives, had no substantial ties to terror groups, and was effectively contained. But President Bush (and his advisers) viewed (and continues to view) the world as nation-states, a series of Machiavellian groups to undercut and enhance. Instead, the world is much less perfect: autonomous groups of cells (in this case terror cells) and nation-states coexist as in a dialectic of power, independent of the other; not the simplistic view promuglated by the Bush Administration of nation-states - the world is not like your board game of Risk.
Your “adults” are but narrow minded ideologues who cannot even admit that they are wrong. Last time I checked, being an adult meant owning up to both your successes and your mistakes. To admit that invading Iraq, screwing the pooch on North Korea and Iran, and continued support for a ballistic missile shield that will protect all of those incoming missiles al Qaeda has (in other words it wouldn’t be useful), will invalidate the whole “Everything has changed since September 11th” mantra of the Republican party. You can’t have it one way or the other. The world is full of nuance - yet the President’s policies are one-size-fits all solutions to problems which no two are alike and are constantly changing. Frankly, I want my country back - is that to nuanced for you?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry,
Comments
Post a comment
This is the permanent home of Bush just doesn't get it. I wrote this post at 14:02 on September 2, 2004. This post is part of grubbykid.com, a weblog. If you liked this entry, why don't you read some other posts such as In the safety of one's own company or Comparative Media Analysis? Or you could go to the site archives or return home. All are good choices.
