I’ve really tried to avoid presidential politics for some weeks now. I’m not commenting on the DNC convention, and won’t be on the RNC one, either.
But I found this article, by a writer who clearly dislikes Bush (and recommended by another), to be thought-provoking.
(via Mark Evanier)
21 view(s)
I agree with the writer that the U.S. has to stay in Iraq now and see it through until the end. As the 9/11 commission has said, if they do not establish democracy there, then Iraq will become a major source of terrorism.
The thing is, however, Iraq was not a source of terror against the U.S. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological weapons, no links to al-Qaeda. While it was not a source of terror before the war, incidents that happened during the war have given the terrorists recruiting fodder.
Saddam was a terrible person and the world *is* better off without him. But that’s not the point. If it was the point, then the President would have said, “Let’s go to war in Iraq, depose a despicable human being, and bring democracy there.” Answer me honestly–would anyone have voted for that war?
Iraq calls into question your president’s judgement and competence–his ability to assess threats to your country, his ability to nurture traditional alliances to help your country withstand threats, his ability to see the long term consequences of his actions.
Iraq has siphoned and will continue to siphon enormous resources from your country, resources that could have been directed towards actual sources of terror. It took seven years to bring democracy to Japan after WWII. Iraq is not a short term committment.
Because your president went into this war without a long term plan on how to get out, the initial goodwill the Iraqi people felt towards your country for freeing them from Saddam has been eroded substantially. This is not going to be quick or easy, but you do have to stay the course.
My point is, you shouldn’t be on this course. Iraq was not a source of terror. But you’re there and it can’t be undone. You have to see it through.
The thing with the terror your country faces is that it doesn’t have a fixed address. You’re not facing a nation, you’re facing a very small, rag tag group of fanatics who slip across borders constantly.
This is a new kind of war. It has to be fought creatively on many fronts. I think it has to go beyond dealing with the current crop of terrorists, to also dealing with the conditions that breed terror. Otherwise, it’s a war without end.
It will involve an ability to think creatively and flexibly, an ability to knit the world together in a common goal that spans many borders, and a long term vision.
Has George Bush shown any of these qualities?
When the president takes his oath, it doesn’t reference an ability to knit the world or spanning many borders, the oath is to defend the constitution of the United States. Given the information he had at the time, I think he made the correct decision to depose Saddam Insane. Saddam had WMDs…..he used them on the Kurds to horrible effect. Although not particularly religous, I respect that he had a belief system that guides his decisions. Given the choice between someone who can’t make up his mind and then stick to the decision and Bush, I’ll choose Bush.