Bush's War, Bush's Fault
He will take the crdeit but not the blame
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
The war in Iraq is yet to acquire a title which is accepted by all. For the neo-cons in the Pentagon it is “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. For those with an historical bent, the conflict is “The Second Gulf War”. It may yet come to be known as “The Iraqi Civil War”. The word “Iraq” is often used without the word “war” as if the country and the conflict were synonymous.
Whatever history decides to call it, for me the latest conflict in the Middle East will always be “Bush’s War”. The war was a war of choice and the man making that choice was George W. Bush. He was the man who spoke relentlessly, sometimes mono-maniacally, about the need for regime change in Baghdad. He was the man who demanded instant results from Hans Blix’s team. He was the man who steadily built up troop strength in the Gulf in late 2002.
Without Bush in the White House, this war would not have happened. It’s unimaginable that a Democrat would have initiated hostilities. It’s highly unlikely that a less neo-con inclined Republican, John McCain for example, would have followed the same course as Bush. From the moment they took office, Bush and his neo-con cabal were determined to install a pro-US regime in Baghdad.
The fate of Iraq and the man who invaded it are now intertwined. Bush will live or die, politically speaking, by the result of the US invasion of Iraq. When things were going well for the US, Bush was only too happy to take the credit. When it seemed that the invasion was a success he flew out to a US air-craft carrier to take the plaudits for the swift victory.
With his pilot’s jump suit and his “Mission Accomplished” banner, Bush wanted to create arresting visual images for this year’s presidential election. He certainly succeeded. Unfortunately for him, he created a campaign ad for his opponent rather than himself.
As the war turned sour in the summer of 2003, Bush had to change the rhetoric. Instead of brash “U-S-A” chest-beating, the American leader has tried to spread the blame for the mess. Hence all the talk of international involvement in Iraq. Then came the plan for a handover of “power” on June 30th.
The logic behind this handover plan is clear. The US wishes to maintain control with a veneer of Iraqi sovereignty. Elections will be kicked into the long grass. The Iraqi police will increasingly take over from US forces.
Politically the aim is to stall, to delay the election of an anti-US government by propping up the puppet “Coalition Provisional Authority”. Militarily, by returning troops to barracks as much as possible, Bush hopes to avoid casualties in the run-up to the presidential election.
From bragging about his success in Iraq last spring, Bush is now keen to make the whole issue go away. By keeping Iraq quiet militarily and politically, Bush hopes to remove it from the centre of the US presidential election. This way, the inevitable crisis in US occupation could be delayed until a second Bush term rather than a first Kerry one.
The stalling tactics have failed and the Iraq story refuses to move off the front pages. In the last week the regular drip of American death, what in Northern Ireland used to be called “an acceptable level of violence”, has been replaced by a torrent. More than forty US soldiers have been killed this week. If the Shi’ite uprising continues then not even the White House will have the front to portray the Iraq war as an administration success story.
The narrative will have to shift from “Vote Bush, the man who brought freedom to Iraq” to “Vote Bush, the man who chases monsters”.
With his facial hair and his religious zealotry, Moqtada al-Sadr comes straight from Central Casting as “Evil Arab Enemy of America”. By a happy coincidence, his surname even sounds a little like that of the last Iraqi demon. This guy was born for the role.
And so it is that Sadr has become the new “evil one”, enemy of those fine abstract nouns “freedom” and “progress”. The US press as usual plays lapdog, happily building up this fairly insignificant cleric as the new Saddam. When the US kills or captures him it will be lauded by these sycophants as a “victory” for Bush.
This ignores the reality that Sadr and his small militia are not the real problem. They may be the spark of an uprising but they are not the fuel. The fuel is an ongoing occupation which is opposed by Sunni and Shia, by supporters of Sadr and followers of Sistani alike. Capturing or killing the latest American demon will make no difference to this.
The Shia genie is now out of the bottle. In a situation like this, attack and retribution develop a strong internal logic of their own. When one side suffers, it tries to make the other side suffer in return. This is the new dynamic in Iraq. Bush’s hopes for a quiet Iraq in the run-up to November’s election hang by a thread.
Whatever history decides to call it, for me the latest conflict in the Middle East will always be “Bush’s War”. The war was a war of choice and the man making that choice was George W. Bush. He was the man who spoke relentlessly, sometimes mono-maniacally, about the need for regime change in Baghdad. He was the man who demanded instant results from Hans Blix’s team. He was the man who steadily built up troop strength in the Gulf in late 2002.
Without Bush in the White House, this war would not have happened. It’s unimaginable that a Democrat would have initiated hostilities. It’s highly unlikely that a less neo-con inclined Republican, John McCain for example, would have followed the same course as Bush. From the moment they took office, Bush and his neo-con cabal were determined to install a pro-US regime in Baghdad.
The fate of Iraq and the man who invaded it are now intertwined. Bush will live or die, politically speaking, by the result of the US invasion of Iraq. When things were going well for the US, Bush was only too happy to take the credit. When it seemed that the invasion was a success he flew out to a US air-craft carrier to take the plaudits for the swift victory.
With his pilot’s jump suit and his “Mission Accomplished” banner, Bush wanted to create arresting visual images for this year’s presidential election. He certainly succeeded. Unfortunately for him, he created a campaign ad for his opponent rather than himself.
As the war turned sour in the summer of 2003, Bush had to change the rhetoric. Instead of brash “U-S-A” chest-beating, the American leader has tried to spread the blame for the mess. Hence all the talk of international involvement in Iraq. Then came the plan for a handover of “power” on June 30th.
The logic behind this handover plan is clear. The US wishes to maintain control with a veneer of Iraqi sovereignty. Elections will be kicked into the long grass. The Iraqi police will increasingly take over from US forces.
Politically the aim is to stall, to delay the election of an anti-US government by propping up the puppet “Coalition Provisional Authority”. Militarily, by returning troops to barracks as much as possible, Bush hopes to avoid casualties in the run-up to the presidential election.
From bragging about his success in Iraq last spring, Bush is now keen to make the whole issue go away. By keeping Iraq quiet militarily and politically, Bush hopes to remove it from the centre of the US presidential election. This way, the inevitable crisis in US occupation could be delayed until a second Bush term rather than a first Kerry one.
The stalling tactics have failed and the Iraq story refuses to move off the front pages. In the last week the regular drip of American death, what in Northern Ireland used to be called “an acceptable level of violence”, has been replaced by a torrent. More than forty US soldiers have been killed this week. If the Shi’ite uprising continues then not even the White House will have the front to portray the Iraq war as an administration success story.
The narrative will have to shift from “Vote Bush, the man who brought freedom to Iraq” to “Vote Bush, the man who chases monsters”.
With his facial hair and his religious zealotry, Moqtada al-Sadr comes straight from Central Casting as “Evil Arab Enemy of America”. By a happy coincidence, his surname even sounds a little like that of the last Iraqi demon. This guy was born for the role.
And so it is that Sadr has become the new “evil one”, enemy of those fine abstract nouns “freedom” and “progress”. The US press as usual plays lapdog, happily building up this fairly insignificant cleric as the new Saddam. When the US kills or captures him it will be lauded by these sycophants as a “victory” for Bush.
This ignores the reality that Sadr and his small militia are not the real problem. They may be the spark of an uprising but they are not the fuel. The fuel is an ongoing occupation which is opposed by Sunni and Shia, by supporters of Sadr and followers of Sistani alike. Capturing or killing the latest American demon will make no difference to this.
The Shia genie is now out of the bottle. In a situation like this, attack and retribution develop a strong internal logic of their own. When one side suffers, it tries to make the other side suffer in return. This is the new dynamic in Iraq. Bush’s hopes for a quiet Iraq in the run-up to November’s election hang by a thread.
Stardock Forums