Wrong, stupid, arrogant... & paying off?

2005.07.09 — Government | Politics | War | George W Bush | by BB Rodriquez

While the terror attacks in London are tragic waste and despicable acts, it is sad comment on our Iraq policy. After all, car bombs and booby traps ("IEDs" in militaryspeak) are common in Iraq, killing dozens—even hundreds—at a time. It's only when the terror is a bit closer to home in an English-speaking ally that it shocks and appalls us.

The Bush approach to terror was stupid, but until now it has been undeniable that it has worked, at least (selfishly, I say) for us. Terrorists were apparently too busy to come to America to wreak havoc. Does Bush deserve credit for this?

It's hard to argue that Junior's war on terror is a complete failure as long as we're enjoying a terror-free America. But the attacks in London underscore the basic failure of the Bush policy: making people hate us makes us less safe. It doesn't matter that they are currently "over there" where we can fight them at the expense of the Iraqi people. It won't take much—or long—before they are "over here."

On September 11, 2001, terrorists took the lives of 2,986 innocent civilians in New York City, Washington DC, and the Pennsylvania countryside. Since then, just 1,958 American military personnel (and 189 allies) have died fighting America's enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq. As long as that tally remains below that of 9/11, perhaps we can conclude that Bush's strategy is worth the human cost.

Of course the war in Iraq was a bamboozle—perhaps even a criminal bamboozle—but it's the kind of old-fashioned, trumped-up, paternalistic, semi-imperial war that America was proud of in the days when Teddy Roosevelt charged up San Juan Hill.

Remember the Maine?

Now, Iraq may smell more like the Gulf of Tonkin at this point—we're more likely to end up beating a hasty "strategic withdrawal" from Iraq than annexing its colonies—but now it no longer even seems likely likely to accomplish what we want to accomplish: the containment of anti-America sentiment in the Middle East and the creation of a democracy (or something close to it) in the heart of the oil-producing region.

Call it callous, but if this clumsy, half-assed struggle would produce a better, safer world and one whose despots are rightfully frightened of American military might, it might have left W with a shining legacy. Will it make them more eager to get nuclear weapons? Sure, but we'll be working to stop them. Will it breed more anti-American sentiment in the Middle East? Sure, in the short run.... Then the Bad Cop will leave office and a Good Cop will engage in improved, friendlier relations with Mid-East countries (not to mention Europe).

"Sorry about that last guy. Let's talk about free trade."

But now something has gone wrong that exposes the lie that the Bushies like to tell about fighting the terrorists where they live: they've come a lot closer to where we live. Could it still work out? Sure. But the Bushies are doing a terrible job of running the country and the war, and they could still screw up so horribly that it takes decades to rehabilitate international relations.

And by then—who know?—Jenna could be running for office.

f e e d b a c k

Respond to this page by your e-mail client. Please be sure to mention the title of the article.

s i d e b a r