George Bush’s Victory: A Flawed Mindset
Written by Major Tom
Filed under: Philippine Politics
November 30, 2005
hen finally America was verging to puts all its steel and military muscle against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the summer of 2003, I was a bit traipsing between two extreme poles, by being vehemently against President Bush’s bullheadedness in shedding blood without the showing of probable cause that was demanded him by the United Nation (with Collin Powell struggling to identify a blurred projection of a supposedly chemical weapon plant somewhere in the outskirts of Baghdad and pinching a vial of Anthrax with a raised hand) while at the same time I was silently wanting to get the people of Iraq a more straightened nation that they deserved for so long, and not the one that Saddam had been shortchanging them, where money coming from huge oil exports just went into arms build-ups, a useless and futile use of resources that should have been utilized to benefit the welfare of the Iraqis more in the past. For one, I really had a strong feeling then that Saddam Hussein had probably gassed the Kurds somewhere in northern Iraq, where many Kurdish women and children lay victim to mustard gas as perpetuated by his henchmen sometime in the late 80’s. It was just a feeling but I felt Saddam was just too dangerous to his own people, just like Marcos or Pinochet. So when the American troops finally went into the path of war against Iraq, I was silently wishing they could extricate Iraq out of Saddam’s vicious hands. But please do not see this as a pro-war sentiment on my part for still, despite of it all, I had disapproved the Iraq War in its entirety. I believe that bloodshed should be desisted at all cost and war is never an antidote to any problem or conflict, but even protracts the conflict.
It has been more than two years since America had launched the “shock and awe” operation against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is now facing trial for possible war crimes committed against his people and I could not help but examine how President George Bush is faring so far in this war undertaking of his. Recently, Bush reiterated that U.S. troops would not leave Baghdad without victory at hand. What is victory in this kind of situation? What particularly did Bush meant by victory? A victory against whom—Saddam Hussein, the Al-Qaeda network, or the resistance? I think we need to be more specific here.
When he spoke those words (about victory before any pull-out), wasn’t President Bush being too simplistic and naïve? No wonder, he has always been criticized for not having the adequate eloquence or proper mindset—often seen merely as “that rich cowboy from Texas“. The word “victory” is such an anachronistic term that was so much in vogue five or six decades ago, when world leaders then would roar like Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “only thing to fear is fear itself” and while some lamented the end of war like Emperor Hirohito’s “to endure the unendurable”. But it isn’t politically correct now, to utter “victory” after a bloody war, now that we haven’t got already the appetite for any more wars, where even the men who held weapons and munitions themselves abhor wars. And now Bush comes harking that America will “stay in the fight until we have achieved the victory our brave troops have fought for.” That might as well be, but having already started a hugely unpopular war, it wouldn’t do him good to spew bombarding words as if warmongering is such a very honorable thing to do, when actually it’s not.
Asking additional war money from the U.S. Congress, President Bush now conditions a total pull-out by the U.S. troops next year only if “victory” is at hand. This condition becomes easier said than done as bombings all over Iraq continue to permeate and without the kind of “victory” that Bush demanded, there would always be a clinging justification for America to perpetuate American forces in Iraq. What if his “victory” won’t come, as he had desired? By then, President Bush might be compelled either to recant his brave words and leave or remain hesitant and waste more taxpayers’ money in a war that can see no end. Either way, it would not look good on him.
+++
Where Now Is The Citizen On Mars? blogged at the highly popular Ka Webspy blogsite. My gratitude to Ka Webspy for the notice. I surely need it. Daghang salamat sa imu bay.
Wow, you got a new template! This one is so pleasing.
Comment by Glenn — November 30, 2005 @ 10:44 am
Thanks Glenn. I am so very thankful for a blogger friend for this look.Congrats for your nomination and semifinal slot in the Philippine Blog Awards.
Comment by Major Tom — November 30, 2005 @ 11:19 am
Like I said before, I’m a very outspoken critic of the Iraq war. This one thing I like with America. You can stand up for your beliefs without the fear of getting incarcerated or killed. When the US decided to attack Iraq for its WMD, I knew that it was a diversionary tactic. Whether it’s meant to appease the Americans for W’s failure to catch Osama Bin Laden and the attacks of 9/11 or it was part of well crafted strategy to control middle-eastern oil resources (I have theorized that this war is a launching pad for attacking Iran in the future), this war is so messed up from the beginning up this moment. More than 2,000 US soldiers have died already, Osama is still on the run, insurgency is like a loose cannon ball, the US and its allies still do have a feasible exit strategy, and more importantly this war was executed based on wrong intelligence. There’s no doubt that Iraq will be better off without Saddam although they should have done that during the first Gulf war. But to make Saddam the fall guy for global terrorism is preposterous. What about Iran’s Khamenei or N. Korea’s Kim Jong Il? Personally, I think that the US should start withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Since time immemorial (from the Crusade to the Vietnam war), insurgency is always hard to beat. It’s pathetic to see my tax money spent on a war without a valid cause.
Comment by John Clark — November 30, 2005 @ 12:26 pm
Citizen of Mars in Blogsome
…
Trackback by Ka Webspy — November 30, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
@John:
That’s what I mean John, the U.S. forces should better be getting out of Iraq, even without the so-called “victory”. I guess ridding of what they suspected as a master of WMDs, Saddam Hussein, should be enough victory for them. I know it is wrong to say that Saddam should be blamed for the terrorism spectre the world is experiencing now, but it was another issue altogether. I didn’t like him for Iraq, coz he was just to ‘war-minded’ for comfort.
@ Ka Webspy:
Gee, I don’y know what to say, bay. I feel so humbled. Daghang salamat gyud sa imu bay.
Comment by Major Tom — November 30, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
When it comes to that idiot sitting in the white house, there are only two things that comes to my mind, stupidity and stupidity.
I would just like to send him a coded message: 370HSSV-0773H.
I’m sure he couldn’t decode it unless he’s wise enough to read it upside down.
Comment by Sam — December 1, 2005 @ 2:48 am
Strong words Sam, but I guess that’s the way it’s gonna be…
Comment by Major Tom — December 1, 2005 @ 5:47 am
the reality is Iraq, with a long history of tribal conflict - kurds, shites and sunnis warring for centuries - needed a dictator like Sadam Hussein to keep everyone honest. His reign wasn’t perfect, but a least no one got bombed because he sold booze in the restaurant.
Comment by bw — December 1, 2005 @ 12:05 pm
Quite indeed BW, but his warring notions kept Iraq under so much stress and tension. He was so unwise to ever thought of vanquishing Iran, a neighboring muslim state at that, and he was too presumptous to ever thought that he could have Kuwait without the expected consequences. Iraqi’s welfare is no better than the people in miserable part of the world when in fact, with bountiful oil resources, it should not have been the case. So much money in weapons.
It is probably right in some manner that the divided Iraqi people needed someone with an iron hand, a dictator perhaps, but I would have wished that he or she is not Saddam Hussein.
Comment by Major Tom — December 2, 2005 @ 5:38 am
nesquik choco ))
Kids love chocolate milk from Nesquik! monopril Have fun online with Quicky the Nesquik bunny.
Trackback by Jutoome strong bones — April 12, 2007 @ 12:02 am