Can We Wait for History to Judge the Bush Presidency?
The following was first published at Just Response and also can be found in the March/April issue of The New River Free Press.
We teach our children not to resort to violence as a way to solve problems, and yet our country models it to the deadliest degree every day in Iraq. Even though violence can only provide temporary fixes because it doesn’t address root causes, we continue to accept war as a fact of life. While it could be argued that it is never the right response to conflict, some wars are easier to explain to children and to ourselves than others. For instance, not many protested U.S. military action in Afghanistan after 9/11, where those believed to be responsible for the attacks were said to be based.
The invasion of Iraq has been more difficult to justify and was questioned from the start by many Americans and much of the world. It was not fought in self-defense; Iraq posed no immediate threat to us. There was no active genocide to stop. The rally cry to liberate Iraqis from Saddam’s brutal rule was as empty as the one for disarming him of the WMDs that he didn’t have, considering that most of his worst offenses happened years before while the U.S. was supporting and helping to arm him.
If the Bush administration would have stated the unspoken reason that many suspect for the invasion – geopolitical advantage in an oil rich Middle East country – would the American people have stood for it? The insurgency that took hold in Iraq, fueled largely as a reaction to occupation, interrupted U.S. plans that were already set in place to privatize the country. The privatization of Iraq would have provided long term U.S. control there and a windfall for U.S. businesses. In my mind, privatization is nothing more than a modern term for colonization.
Zbigniew Brzenzinski, national Security Advisor under President Carter, said on a recent PBS News Hour segment, “The American effort in Iraq is essentially a colonial effort. We’re waging a colonial war. We live in the post-colonial era. This war cannot be won because it is simply out of sync with historical times.” Colonialism almost always results in long standing bloody violence. Those who resist the occupation of their country and use unconventional weapons because they do not have armies are considered terrorists across the board.
Now that the war is so unpopular, people are looking for who they can blame for it. Even Democrats, the majority of which voted against the 2003 Iraq war resolution, are being lambasted for not coming up with solutions, as if it’s their responsibility to fix Bush’s failed policy. Democrats who voted to give Bush a blank check in Iraq should be criticized for being so late in complaining, but I don’t think a Democrat, or most Republicans for that matter, would have chosen to invade Iraq. Everything that is happening in Iraq was predictable and was predicted. Even Republicans in Bush’s father’s administration were concerned about the ramifications of getting rid of Saddam and creating a vacuum of power in which longstanding warring fractions would emerge. The Bush Administration chose to ignore warnings and intelligence that didn’t fit their plans. Their justification for invading Iraq was built on rhetoric and a house of cards, and so it was bound to fall.
I feel the heartbreaking horror of 9/11 being rubbed in everyday when I see the faces of U.S. soldiers memorialized on news shows. Three thousand American deaths on 9/11, three thousand more since then with no end in sight makes me wonder if the 9/11 terrorists have already won. Even worse and less publicized are the numbers of innocent Iraq civilians killed as a result of the invasion – more than when Saddam was in power. How do we justify “collateral damage?” Is it any more preferable than terrorists killing civilians?
I’ve lived through presidencies that I was unhappy with before. I don’t expect to always have someone I voted for in the White House. But the very least I expect as an American is that my leaders won’t perpetrate wars. The world is paying a high price for George Bush’s learning curve in foreign affairs, for his reckless disregard of international law and order, and for his administration’s negligent lack of post war planning.
Debates about what to do in Iraq will no doubt continue, but sending more troops or not is not the most fundamental question. The problem is the war itself. If we couldn’t prevail in Iraq when the insurgency was young and Iraq seemed there for the taking, what makes anyone think we can win now that it’s strong and a civil war is taking place on top of it? So doubtful that an escalation of troops will help the situation in Iraq at this point, retired General Anthony Zinni recently said, “the debate is wrong. I think Congress is debating the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.”
How will history judge Bush’s presidency? I don’t want to wait that long. If Bush was the CEO of a big company he would have been fired or prosecuted by now. A vote of no confidence, Impeachment, and Congressional investigations are in order. President Bush is ultimately the one responsible for the nightmare taking place in Iraq, and he should be held accountable for it. ~ Colleen Redman
March 11th, 2007 11:57 am
I don’t see it quite so clearly and closely as you people do but I can side with you as does Jann Arden in her new release of cover tunes with, “Bring The Boys Home”. (A great album BTW)
March 11th, 2007 12:08 pm
Great post, Colleen. I was thinking about similar issues earlier this morning, myself…
Have a great Sunday!
March 11th, 2007 1:40 pm
My biggest fear is that we’re in an era of never-ending wars as the battle for resources grows. Water will be one of the next big things to become scarce and it’s a grave concern to me.
March 11th, 2007 1:54 pm
It will be interesting to see how history judges this president. Time will tell, as it does with all presidents.
When my husband was in Iraq in late 2002,just before the war began, he was able to forge friendships with many Iraqi collegues. SOme are still in touch, some are now living in other places. One recently was helped by my husband’s letter of recommendation to become a permanent resident here. They would all tell the author of this piece they disagree with several points, not the least are the ones concerning genocide and recent atrocities presented right before the war began. My husband has some interesting stories about that trip. He was there about a month and was in Baghdad, Basra and the Kurdish area. He was briefly in Tikrit.
Recently, also, in several interviews, Gen. Zinni has come out as being a supporter of Gen. Petraeus and not leaving before the new mission has a chance. The last chance.
March 11th, 2007 2:45 pm
i still feel, in my gut, that history will tell a positive thing about bush’s presidency. he’s doing the hard work that no one else has wanted to do, in hopes of democracy and peace for the future of the middle east. i think he is hated because he is what people are calling him…a cowboy. he’s trying to clean up all the corruption that is today’s politics, including the U.N…. what ever happened to the oil for food scandal? it got swept under the rug by the liberal media. politicians and dignitaries from the countries that have spewed hatred at bush were the ones involved in the oil for food scandal.
and why in the world was saddaam given 12 years to comply with U.N. resolutions? do we give that same amount of time to other nations? no!
and i don’t think it’s coincidence that since the WMD inspections, all of a sudden north korea and iran have nuclear capabilities. saddaam had months, if not years, of warning. plenty of time to move them elsewhere.
i think people are deceived, but not by the bush presidency. the “establishment” wants corruption to continue, and bush is despised for trying to correct it. there are many politicians that have come before bush who were hated for their policies….policies that ended up changing the world for good.
we only have a glimpse of what’s really going on. there is no question in my mind that most of the media is biased against bush, and conservatives in general…and there is lots of money getting passed around to continue that.
again…..just my opinion…one that might get proven wrong as everyone else’s is apt to.
March 11th, 2007 3:15 pm
I hope history will judge him as the WPE (worst president ever), but as I wasn’t around for most of the other presidencies, I don’t know for sure if he’s the most reviled. I do know that I’ve never seen him look saddened or genuinely tortured over the decisions he’s made–even if they were the right decisions, surely he would show the weight of the world on his shoulders?
March 11th, 2007 3:31 pm
Obviously Saddam ruled with an iron fist which is how he kept civil war at bay in a country whose boundaries were invented by Western powers. But there was no large scale uprising or killing to warrant an invasion.
Israel has a much worst record for non-compliance of UN resolutions than Iraq did. Iran and Korea ratcheted up their nuclear weapons programs after we invaded Iraq because they wanted to be able to protect themselves from a similar invasion.
March 11th, 2007 3:57 pm
I definitely agree. Although, after Bush was impeached, we’d have to turn around and impeach Cheney as well.
Here this time from Michele’s!
~S
March 11th, 2007 5:31 pm
I would just like to add, if I may, that Saddam murdered with chemical weapons and tortue many more than the genocide, in say, the Sudan, where now Bush is being called upon to “stop”. I’m not sure what they are calling for in that regard.
Also, N. Korea was developing the nuclear weapons all during the 90’s despite the agreement with the Clinton administration. They simply ignored it and continued on. That was well ahead of our action in Iraq.
And Iran, well, I couldn’t disagree more.
That’s what makes discussions interesting.
March 11th, 2007 5:34 pm
AMEN! I agree, Colleen. and he is my WPE, for sure!
March 11th, 2007 6:06 pm
The gassing of the Kurds happened during the time that the US was suporting Saddam and helping to arm him, so the premise of saving Iraqis from him 15 years later seems hypocritical to me. The killing of many others happened after the first Gulf War when the US suggested an uprising but then did not lend a hand. Both happened well before the invasion. Korea threw out inspectors in 2003.
For the most part, I don’t have a lot of energy to engage in debates when minds have already been made up, which is why I try to direct my thoughts to occasional commentaries.
March 12th, 2007 12:09 am
oh, colleen, what great commentary! i could not agree with you more. every day that we continue this war we are jeopardizing lives, and this irresponsiblilty will eventually find us all. no one should be stunned by the results…the writing has been on the wall simply for the viewing. i must say, however, that i remain surprised at this point in time by perspectives which seem bathed in defense instead of reality.
March 12th, 2007 12:23 am
Great column. I agree with your assessment, however and unfortunately, accountability is not in this president’s future. I’m afraid all we can do is hold our collective breath until Jan., 2009 and hope for the best. He’s not likely to be impeached. There is a silver lining; neoconservativism has been dealt a crippling and probably fatal blow – it won’t likely rise to power again anytime soon. Now if the nation could end its love affair with military power, we might stand a chance.
Michele sent me, Colleen, and I’m glad she did.
Mike
March 12th, 2007 5:28 am
This is Brilliant, Colleen. Bravo to you, my dear! Everything is said in such a wonderfully sane manner….And Right On The Money, too! It all makes my blood boil and I have no way of expressing how exasperated I am and frustrated and deeply deeply angry. Thank you for articulating so much of what I feel myself, but don’t have the skills and gifts that you do to say it!
March 12th, 2007 6:57 am
I quote you here: “Everything that is happening in Iraq was predictable and was predicted” and fully agree. From the start there was public resistance – by the millions peopled marched in protest who said as much (along with a small handful of politicians who went against the grain of Bush’s policy decisions). I agree with your entire piece which was so well said. Bravo. Many Americans are not happy with what is happening. Many saw it coming.
Let me add that I appreciate the agony that this war has caused for those who thought we must invade in order to repel any threat to our borders. But was the threat as real as we were led to believe? The emotional response, that our country was/is doing as it had to, represents, I think, only the tip of the iceberg because considering all the evidence to the contrary, I’d say we are compromising our futures if we continue this dangerous course. The economy of the U.S. is tanking fast. The victory over Saddam will soon be forgotten (if not already) when we are faced with paying the bills…both emotional and economic. Terrorist activity is increasing as are controls of the government.
We are looking at a very real dilemma. I’d say we have to pull out and fix what was a mistake to begin with. I’d say we have to demand also that electronic voting machines be demolished. Bush would not now even be our president had there been a paper trail of the elections and we would not be where we are now.
March 12th, 2007 8:34 am
Colleen this entire Bush thing gets me so upset everytime I think about it. Every night almost I ask Martin, “Isn’t this enough to get him impeached?” The people who stand by him honestly make me sick to my stomach. I feel like we are a nation of fools sometimes! Truly a nation whose leaders are more concerned with power plays than humanity itself!
Great post!
March 12th, 2007 8:10 pm
Deck chairs on the Titanic? Ah, yes, Colleen. Your words are so appropriate. I am a 78 year-old woman and agonize over the condition our world is in, but more than that I greatly regret the legacy I am leaving for my children and grandchildren.