Beginning To Build Relationships

Bush is quoted from his TV speech of last night as saying that "We are ready to begin building that relationship... [supposedly the enduring one allegedly asked for by Iraqi leaders]" Pray tell, what has our government been doing for the past 4-1/2 years, if we have now just begun? Whatever.

It's Still the Oil

Bush, in his Iraqi policy speech to the nation last night, described his intention to keep troops in Iraq for the long term. General Patreaus, in a CNN interview, described a national security objective in Iraq as securing long-term military bases. Bush claimed that "Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America…" Show me the names of the Iraqi leaders who made this request, and I'll show you fresh targets for assassination attempts. In the McClatchy Newspapers report that I read, Bush went on to say, "And we are ready to begin building that relationship, in a way that protects our interests in the region." The only national security interest we have in that "region" is the oil reserves. So, don't give me that crap about building democracy. It's still the oil.

A New Tornado - Republican Spin Lands in Kansas

Chris Morgan, executive director of the Kansas Republican Party, wrote an "As I See It" column on Bush's legacy for the September 11, 2007, Kansas City Star. While using material from Karl Rove's National Review article titled "The Long View", and heaven knows what other publications, without attribution, he may have included personal observations. Regardless of his sources, his comments warrant reply. Upon reading Morgan's lead sentence, which featured a prepositional phrase without a leading preposition in the predicate, I decided that close reading of his essay would be needed to understand his message.

In the first paragraph, following the incomplete sentence, Morgan states that history's judgement of Bush is an important debate, with consideration of Bush's deeds and accomplishments during both terms being equally important. What Morgan omits as also important to the debate are Bush's misdeeds and failures, and the beneficial or deleterious effects of his deeds, misdeeds, accomplishments and failures. History's judgement will not be based on a one-sided evaluation. Morgan claims that history, rightly or wrongly, will judge Bush largely on our success or failure in Afghanistan and Iraq. Morgan's characterization of the weight given the outcomes of Bush's military ventures as a decider of his legacy seems on target. His insinuation that history's judgement may not be fair to Bush is an unwarranted disclaimer of its validity and is an veiled attempt to preempt history's judgement with his own.

Morgan labels as significant Bush's policy pronouncement to preemptively attack terrorists or their enablers, and even claims that the policy should have been put in effect after the World Trade Center attack in 1993. Morgan describes the changes as an "…aggressive campaign against terrorists, vowing to hunt them down and [to] punish … sponsors of terrorism overseas." This isn't a new policy, it is merely a more intense reaction to a horrific terrorist act that woke us all up to the depth of hatred that fundamentalist Islamists, operating as al-Qaida, have for the West. The formulator of this reaction wasn't George Bush, rather it was Osama bin Laden. The sole pursuit of this policy in our foreign relations has damaged our reputation abroad, while focusing our attention on the use of military force rather than meeting the challenges of the 21st Century by applying economic, political and diplomatic means to fight Islamic extremism. If I were a Bush Republican, I'd be careful with what credit I took for policies that can just as easily misfire.

I take issue with every claim of leadership that Morgan makes for Bush from African AIDs relief to 'modernizing' prescription drug benefits, but space is lacking for a wholesale refutation of his claims. However, three audacious claims are worth exposing: first, that Bush led the economy from recession; second, that Bush returned the rule of law back to the courts; and third, that Bush has effectively confronted Islamic terrorism.

Let's be clear, the economy was never in recession and Presidents have little, if any, impact on the performance of the capitalistic, free-trade economy that we enjoy. It's still a fact that the rule of law has always been the purpose of the courts. It never left. What's more, everyone is responsible for upholding the rule of law, including the Executive Office of the President, Congress, and the Federal bureaucracy. How well has George Bush fared in this regard? The lack of an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil proves nothing about our relative safety today. Actually, because Bush confronted Islamic terrorism with military strength, little has been done to defuse it or develop a comprehensive plan to counter its divisive effects.

I don't expect any better from a hard-liner like Morgan. Actually, Bush alone doesn't deserve all the blame for the sad state of affairs that exists in our nation today. The blame is shared by the Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, the Bush appointees, members of Congress who support Bush and his minions and plain old citizens who believe the crap being spewed out by Republican operatives and hangers-on.

Military Response to Terrorism

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an immediate response by the United States was not only expected, it was virtually demanded by a nation that would not allow this criminal act go unpunished. The target of our response was also predictable. Afghanistan harbored Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the attack. The Taliban, a paramilitary force was in control of Afghanistan. Clearly, combat soldiers were the appropriate response. However, a belated attack on Iraq in response to 9/11 was unexpected, at least by me.

With military operations in Aghanistan winding down, but not successfully concluded by the capture of Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and top Taliban leaders, the Bush administration began a publicity campaign to justify a military invasion of Iraq. Basically, Bush's line was that al-Qaida had conspired with Saddam Hussein in planning the 9/11 attack. Bush insisted that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush claimed that, because Saddam hated the USA, these weapons would fall into the hands of al-Qaida, who wouldn't hesitate to use them against us or at least try to do that. I won't quibble with that possibility, but surely there were options besides an armed invasion to prevent it.

The military invasion of Iraq was carried out with shock and awe, resulting in "Mission Accomplished". Saddam's army dissolved into the neighborhoods of Iraq's cities, as our forces advanced. The U.S. military stayed in place to pacify the population, but ended up embroiled in fighting against guerrilla insurgents, including fighters associated with al-Qaida. As Iraqi security spiraled out of control, our troops were caught in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shia religious factions. Although the possibility that our armed forces are embroiled in a quagmire is denied by the Bush administration, they have accepted the premise that our military success will be equated to a lack of participation by opposition Iraqi elements. So, we went from fighting terrorists in Afghanistan to fighting Iraqi's in Iraq with some terrorists (who were there because we were) thrown into the mix, without an exit plan. The war has become a open-ended commitment where victory is illusive and will not be determined by our actions, but rather by the inaction of our adversaries.

The problems with continuation of the Bush military response in Iraq to a successful conclusion are manifold. The Iraq War has caused grievous casualties without commensurate gain. It has squandered national resources without a future return on investment. It has divided our society. Persons who were not for a preemptory attack on a sovereign nation are not in favor of continuing the effort, styled now as an effort to bring democracy to a Middle East country. Some who supported the attack on Iraq originally, now oppose it. But, a minority is still steadfastly thirsting for victory, including the architect, George Bush.

I oppose the Iraq invasion, at its inception and now, because I don't think the war on terror is amenable to a military response. The terrorist cells are composed not of soldiers, rather they consist of idealistic malcontents who hate America. Their hatred is a response to several conditions and perceptions of oppression, to religious dogma that has stifled the cultural and economic development of their homeland and other causes, real and imagined.

Terrorism constitutes unconventional war and bedevils conventional military tactics. A new paradigm is needed to counter terrorism. I don't have a magic formula with the answer, but I suspect it involves curing the ills of their society from inside by supporting change, but not initiating it. The less we are directly and overtly involved in the solution, the more likely it is to succeed. Since conventional warfare is not working, I hope our esteemed leaders would apply the best minds available to a new plan of action.

Bush's Advice on How to Fight Terrorism

An Associated Press report from Sydney, Australia, says that President Bush urged Asia-Pacific nations to keep up the anti-terror fight, deploying both military might and democratic ideals to turn the tide against extremists. Bush is quoted: "Pressure keeps the terrorists on the run, and when on the run, we're safer. We must be focused, and must not let up."

'Military might' did not produce the recent arrests in Germany of terrorists plotting to harm American military personnel and damage their installations. Armed forces are not designed for combating terrorists. Police work is what stops terrorists from carrying out their nefarious plots.

"Democratic ideals' are not indigenous to Middle Eastern culture, the spawning ground of Islamist Fundamentalist ideas that fuel terrorism. Democracy developed in Western Europe and the United States over centuries. Democracy will not be installed in Middle Eastern countries on Bush's timetable, whatever that is.

Keeping up the anti-terrorist fight on Bush's terms is a ridiculous notion. It is fed to the world population in disrespect for their common sense and with knowledge of their ignorance of the Muslim world. The anti-terrorist fight is what needs focus, not the idea of keeping the terrorists on the run. What needs focus is the state of mind of the terrorists and what motivates him or her to attack the West. Bush says they don't like us, because we have freedom. I propose that they hate us, because of our imperialistic practices with regard to their homelands. I propose that they hate us, because our movies, magazines and television shows are an affront to their cultural standards. I propose that they hate us, because their own civilization is in trouble and they think we are to blame. They don't hate us for our democratic ideals or our military might, except as we use these tools against their desire for self-determination.

We, the people, need to convene a citizen's convention to develop a plan of action to deal with Islamist terrorists. We need to gather together the world's foremost experts in the subject's that have a bearing on the problem of terrorism and draw on their collective knowledge to fashion a plan for neutralizing terroristic acts and advancing their just demands. We need to rise above the culture of fear-mongering and militarism to get to a real workable solution, not a continuation of an ineffective program with false hopes for victory. We need to start now, because already, under the inept leadership of the Bushites, we are six years late in getting started to counter the reality of terrorism aimed at our people and institutions.

More on Bush in Iraq - Be Afraid

To quote Bush, as reported by the New York Times, "…when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home."

One could conclude that this position of strength and success that Bush postulates is possible only due to the surge of troops added to the Iraq mission. Or perhaps, it was due to a change in tactics that only the surge of troops could implement. Or perhaps, the success is more hype than reality. In any case, regardless of what produces success, the lack of it supposedly will embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home. Will someone please explain to me how that works? A lack of success in Iraq somehow reduces our ability to maintain internal security. How? A lack of success somehow improves the ability of al-Qaida in Iraq to obtain the logistical resources to attack the U.S. mainland, or Hawaii or Alaska or Puerto Rico. How? In other words, we are supposed to believe that al-Qaida's strength is inversely proportional to ours. If we are stronger, they are weaker. If we are weaker, they are stronger. This type of relationship between them and us is nonsense, just as the idea that withdrawal from Iraq will make us less secure at home. It's the same old story, drive a wedge of fear between our common sense and our critical-thinking ability so they don't work together. Of course, the success may be illusory, just as Bush's fear-mongering is an attempt to create an illusion of al-Qaida prowess. Be wary of those who would confuse you. By the way, wouldn't drawing down troop levels, weaken our position and embolden the enemy. Sounds like quagmire to me.

Bush in Iraq

Labor Day, normally a slow news day, was enlivened by President Bush's visit to Iraq. By my estimation, this trip by Shrub was nothing more than a media event. It was Bubba's chance to assert that security had improved throughout Iraq, undoubtedly due to the "surge". Well, if the surge worked, why did it take 4 years or so to figure it out. What's wrong with the brainpower in the defense establishment, including the White House. Do we lay all the blame on Rumsfeld? Is that realistic? Was Rummie the only one with a brain, even though his doesn't appear to have worked that well. Of course, others in the Bush administration and the upper levels of the Pentagon had a shot at solving the Iraq problem, but none had, the surge to the contrary notwithstanding. So, here we are being told by Bush that the surge is working. Sounds like he knows what is in the report that General Petraeus is to deliver on September 11th. Wanna bet?