War Bluff
The Democratic leaders running for president have had to defend the authorization they gave president Bush for the war in Iraq. They frame their argument in several ways, saying that they were deceived by the administration or bad intelligence. Other times they claim they supported the war, before they were against it, only they never believed that the management by the administration would be so incompetent. The more plausible answer to why they voted to give the President war powers, against a country that was not involved in 9/11 and had no real capacity to hurt us, was that they thought it was a bluff.
So much of the clarity of history is lost in the fog of current events. It is easy to forget the unity of mind and near universal support the president received after 9/11. The vast majority of the country had no comprehension of the enemy we faced. Full of doubt we deferred to the defense department and the commander-in-chief to once again make us feel secure. So many years later, and with so much that has gone wrong it is easy to forget that Bush's saber rattling had produced real breakthroughs prior to the invasion. Bush's build up to war had gotten weapons inspectors back onto the streets of Baghdad with access to sites not examined in the past. This success was a feather in the diplomatic cap of the State Department and the administration. It was the clumsy passing of the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 that antagonized Saddam into ejecting the inspectors in the first place. Bush had succeeded where Clinton had failed. Thanks to hard diplomacy and Bush's rhetoric, Saddam's image in the region and to his people as an all powerful dictator took another blow. Today Saddam is seen as a martyr to the cause of extremism by those that would do us harm. Had Bush withdrawn with his winnings at that point like his father did after liberating Kuwait we would now be more secure and the President's approval ratings would be much, much higher.
It was a good bluff and it worked. Only for the hawks in the administration, it wasn't a bluff. They believed their philosophical ideas more that the facts at hand and now this nation is living with the consequences. Few in this country or the world now believe that not going to war in Iraq was never an option considered by the administration.
Why not admit to voters that they thought the threat of invasion of Iraq was a feign in order to advance the cause of diplomacy? Do lawmakers believe that the general public is unaware that politicians lie and deceive as part of their job. They lie in their own service all the time. Why not admit to lying to dictators and the world to fight terrorism and totalitarianism? In today's climate the diplomatic bluff isn't even a tool at our disposal anymore. The card of the greatest military in the world has been played and our deck of options is shrinking. Iran certainly knows we don't have the resources to invade them. North Korea has recently bargained an agreement to receive food and oil without nothing but their word that they will begin to shut down their nuclear weapons program. This is accentually the same deal brokered by the Clinton administration in 1994. Kim Jong Il is making promises in order to get food and oil to run his government for a little while longer, but what happens if he's bluffing?
So much of the clarity of history is lost in the fog of current events. It is easy to forget the unity of mind and near universal support the president received after 9/11. The vast majority of the country had no comprehension of the enemy we faced. Full of doubt we deferred to the defense department and the commander-in-chief to once again make us feel secure. So many years later, and with so much that has gone wrong it is easy to forget that Bush's saber rattling had produced real breakthroughs prior to the invasion. Bush's build up to war had gotten weapons inspectors back onto the streets of Baghdad with access to sites not examined in the past. This success was a feather in the diplomatic cap of the State Department and the administration. It was the clumsy passing of the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 that antagonized Saddam into ejecting the inspectors in the first place. Bush had succeeded where Clinton had failed. Thanks to hard diplomacy and Bush's rhetoric, Saddam's image in the region and to his people as an all powerful dictator took another blow. Today Saddam is seen as a martyr to the cause of extremism by those that would do us harm. Had Bush withdrawn with his winnings at that point like his father did after liberating Kuwait we would now be more secure and the President's approval ratings would be much, much higher.
It was a good bluff and it worked. Only for the hawks in the administration, it wasn't a bluff. They believed their philosophical ideas more that the facts at hand and now this nation is living with the consequences. Few in this country or the world now believe that not going to war in Iraq was never an option considered by the administration.
Why not admit to voters that they thought the threat of invasion of Iraq was a feign in order to advance the cause of diplomacy? Do lawmakers believe that the general public is unaware that politicians lie and deceive as part of their job. They lie in their own service all the time. Why not admit to lying to dictators and the world to fight terrorism and totalitarianism? In today's climate the diplomatic bluff isn't even a tool at our disposal anymore. The card of the greatest military in the world has been played and our deck of options is shrinking. Iran certainly knows we don't have the resources to invade them. North Korea has recently bargained an agreement to receive food and oil without nothing but their word that they will begin to shut down their nuclear weapons program. This is accentually the same deal brokered by the Clinton administration in 1994. Kim Jong Il is making promises in order to get food and oil to run his government for a little while longer, but what happens if he's bluffing?
posted by kamuizot at 4:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home