Thursday, June 30, 2005

Bush's foreign policy gobsmacks the world

Timothy Garton Ash in this column takes an optimistic view of current American foreign policy in general: The sobering of America Guardian (UK) 06/30/05. Although I'm not sure hardcore Bush fans would see his perspective as such.

In short, whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a crime, it's now clear that - at least in the form in which the invasion and occupation was executed by the Bush administration - it was a massive blunder. And the American people are beginning to see this. Before Bush spoke at Fort Bragg, 53% of those asked in a CNN/Gallup poll said it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Just 40% approved of how he has handled Iraq, down from 50% at the time of the presidential election last November. Contrary to what many Europeans believe, you can fool some of the Americans all of the time, and all of the Americans some of the time, but you can't fool most Americans most of the time - even with the help of Fox News. Reality gets through. Hence the new sobriety.

His following paragraph is a reminder of how far the sentimentalizing and romanticizing of the military has gone in the US (my emphasis):

I don't want to overstate this. One is still gobsmacked by things American Republicans say. Take the glorification of the military, for example. In his speech, Bush insisted "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces". What? No higher calling! How about being a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, an aid worker? Unimaginable that any European leader could say such a thing.

I've never seen or heard the word "gobsmacked" before. But I like it. l As Tom Sawyer might have said, I don't know what it means but it sure sounds grand!

And Garton Ash is definitely not impressed with Bush's argument that the Iraq War was a great idea because now we're fighting some jihadist terrorists there (my emphasis):

Consider. Three years ago, when the Bush administration started ramping up the case for invading Iraq, Afghanistan had recently been liberated from both the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorists who had attacked the US. There was still a vast amount to be done to make Afghanistan a safeplace. Iraq, meanwhile, was a hideous dictatorship under Saddam Hussein. But, as the United States' own September 11 commission subsequently concluded, Saddam's regime had no connection with the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not then a recruiting sergeant or training ground for jihadist terrorists. Now it is. The US-led invasion, and Washington's grievous mishandling of the subsequent occupation, have made it so. General Wesley Clark puts it plainly: "We are creating enemies." And the president observes: our great achievement will be to prevent Iraq becoming another Taliban-style, al-Qaida-harbouring Afghanistan! This is like a man who shoots himself in the foot and then says: "We must prevent it turning gangrenous, then you'll understand why I was right to shoot myself in the foot."

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

"In short, whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a crime, it's now clear that - at least in the form in which the invasion and occupation was executed by the Bush administration - it was a massive blunder. "

I don't agree.

Its not clear to me that "at least in the form in which the invasion and occupation was executed by the Bush administration - it was a massive blunder."


blunder
serious mistake: a serious or embarrassing mistake resulting from carelessness or ignorance

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861591430

I wouldn't characterize the invasion and occupation, as conceived or as executed, as a blunder or blunders unless I knew what the administration was/is attempting to do (tactics) an/or what it was/s trying to accomplish (strategy). There is no consensus on these matters. People continue to argue about them. Suffice it to say I don't know the answers to any degree of certainty.

It's significant that nether Bush nor any current member of the administration has called its actions with respect to the war and occupation "blunders."

Its quite clear that the invasion was a crime; the invasion and occupation have been an ongoing series of crimes violation the Nuremberg principles, the Geneva Conventions, etc etc. We don't need further information to support these conclusions. We need only contrast the actions of the administration with its various legal obligations. Many people have written on this I won't ad here to the proliferation of texts.


Anonymous said...

#2
If the Bush administration wishes to argue that its actions were blunders not crimes, we should of course pay attentions. I don’t think there’s any way to argue that successfully, but we would see. Alternatively, Bush might argue that certain blunders mitigate, but don’t eliminate, his criminal culpability. That might be a good argument.

However, as stated above, Bush isn’t saying he blundered at all. We should not make up excuses for Bush that Bush himself hasn’t made.

Anonymous said...

This is the first time i posted on this system. Please read the #2 post second.