September 27, 2004
No Exit
Last week, George W. Bush rose to speak before a mute audience at the United Nations General Assemby. There was a certain irony in Bush’s speech—Bush represents a political party which is seeking to do as much as it can to dismantle the U.N.’s status in the world. Last year, the U.S. launched the invasion of Iraq with flagrant disregard to the anti-war sentiment within the U.N. Security Council. Now, Bush was appearing before the U.N. saying the war was undertaken to support U.N. Security Council objectives. No one was fooled.
But there is a second irony, less obvious, which I would like to note in this column: Bush's high-minded declarations of nation-building (does anyone really believe Iraq is now sovereign?) run in direct contravention to his stated foreign policy objectives during the 2000 campaign. In 2000, Bush made two things abundantly clear: he would not engage in nation-building and he would not engage U.S. military forces without an exit strategy. Bush has violated both tenets.
Forget for a moment that the war was launched on false premises, that it has alienated the vast majority of the world community (including, polls will indicate, most residents of Britain, Japan, and other supposed supporters), and that--at least up until now--the war appears to be an impossible quagmire with no immediate hope for resolution, a quagmire that each day costs more U.S. lives and drains more U.S. resources away from badly needed homeland security and domestic priorities--and away from fighting the real war on terror, the one which tracks down the a-holes responsible for Sept. 11 and lets the world know that anyone who attacks the U.S. will ultimately pay the price.
Forget about that for a moment. Other columns have addressed and will continue to address those issues. What I want to say here is that Bush is a hypocrite. A flip-flopper, if you will. Here is what Bush had to say during the presidential debates--at a time when he was seeking to paint Clinton's interventions in Haiti and Kosovo in a poor light.
Bush was asked the following question during his first debate with Al Gore: How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use US force, generally?
Bush gave the following answer:
Well, if it's in our vital national interests, and that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances are -- defense alliances are threatened. Whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear; whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to -- to -- win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.
I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation-builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.
That was on Oct. 3, 2000. In the third and final presidential debate, Bush said something along similar lines:
Your question was deployment. It must be in the national interests. It must be in our vital interest whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why are we going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined.
"The mission must be clear."
What was the mission in Iraq? The mission, as stated, was to prevent Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction. As it turns out, the WMD alarm was based on bogus documents far more damaging than the dubious memos broadcast by Dan Rather. Why do the same people who support firing Rather oppose firing Bush? Good question.
Back to my point. Bush said a mission must be clear, strong, with an exit strategy. In Iraq, the mission has not been clear. It has meandered from stopping WMDS to getting rid of Saddam Hussein to God-knows-what; nation-building, mostly, the very goal Bush said he did not intend to pursue. Bush said in 2000 "the force must be strong"; but by most estimates, he only committed one-third of the ground troops needed to stabilize Iraq (it would have helped if he had broadened the scope of his alliances beyond his shallow list of "bribed and coerced" partners to a list that included real ground assistance, Britain excepting).
Equipment hasn't arrived on time, training hasn't taken place as planned, strategic planning and intelligence advice has been ignored.
Furthermore, Bush said he would not enter a military deployment without an exit strategy. What is Bush's exit strategy here? While the White House had books filled with analysis of what a post-war Iraq might look like (including warnings about the potential for looting, insurgency, and civil war), it is unclear whether the president any time reviewing them (he has, after all, indicated publicly his disdain for reading).
The original outline Bush provided was okay: military deployment should be done reluctantly, but with full force and clear, realizable objectives. But Bush has not remained true in any way, shape, or form to this platform.
In the same way "No Child Left Behind" says staff should be held accountable for the performance of students, Bush needs to be held accountable for the performance of his administration. How would I describe that performance?
Three words: No exit strategy.
Posted by Ed West at September 27, 2004 01:32 AMGood article Ed.
It just kills me that Bush refused to spend his political capital to ensure the success of the mission.
Regardless of whether the invasion itself was right or wrong (or even legal), Bush was determined to invade and occupy Iraq on the cheap.
Bush fired Gen. Shinseki for telling him he’d need 300,000 troops at the outset to do the occupation properly. He fired his economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey for telling him the operation would cost $200 billion. These guys didn’t just pull those numbers out of their butts, they were based on a lot of analysis and and modeling.
Bush is in denial over everything about the Iraq mission. And it kills me that he would send our troops over there without making every possible effort to ensure the mission’s success and minimize troop losses.
Ed and the rest of the bloggers,
Iraq and the middle east will take some serious work if America is to “Win this War”. However, I think we need to get some real answers of the history, who Al Qaeda is and what they stand for, and our nations outlook on how best to play our part in bringing peace to the area.
Therefore, read Middle East History and Resources and Middle East Peace Policy U.S. Opinion to get a better prospective of what we face. By the American public becoming aware of the BS that has been force feed us over the last three decades and holding the leaders of Islam accountable for the truth we can win the peace and bring our troops home with honor.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 27, 2004 07:47 AMSorry if the links don’t work.
The addresses are Middle East History and Resources at http://www.mideastweb.org/history.htm
And Middle East Peace Policy US Opinion at http://www.saudia-online.com/zogbi/2003/zogbi104.shtml
Happy reading and learning
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 27, 2004 07:54 AMThanks for the links Henry. You need to remove the “/link” from the end of the web address. That should take care of it.
Thanks AP,
I figured these links would show some light on why an exit plan for America and the world will be harder under Bush than Kerry. Basing the debate on just culture or religion is not going to solve the under lying problems. However, exposing the truth about how and why the Jewish religion and Islamish religion has used it’s power to control their people should allow everyone to start looking at the extremist of all religions and cultures in a different light.
Can you see the conservative christian right finding out their religion is taken from the “God of Fire.”
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 27, 2004 09:57 AMI’m truly shocked! You mean politicians will lie in debates?
Seriously, I think Kerry has to hammer this point home in the debates. Sadly, many Bush supporters simply don’t know anything but what the spinmasters at Bush,Inc. are saying.If he can effectively expose Bush’s lying and non-answers I think he could sway some voters. Of course there are some zombies out there who would shout Zieg Heil!, if Bush asked them to.
Posted by: Greg at September 27, 2004 12:53 PMEd West,
There is a tiny little problem in this “Independent” Bush-Bashing tirade. You fail to eaither realize or admit that 9-11 changed everything. Not just a few attitudes, or some comment about what war would look like were W the prez. EVERYTHING. Do you think Bush was referring to War with an enemy that has no borders, that melds into society and murders women and children in their own cities to hide out in residential neighborhoods so that when they get attacked, their liberal allies in the US can spout “War Crimes” and “Collateral Damage” and “Lies” and some other such blather.
You say he has ignored intelligence, but when he follows his (AND THE SUMMATION OF THE WORLD’S INTELLIGENCE) regarding WMD’s, you like the other liberal’s in independant clothing, crucify him as a liar and a deceiver.
Iraq is a huge problem, and presents gigantic challenges every day, but it’s very easy to look at the Antithesis of John Kerry and say, you should’ve done this, or why didn’t you do that, AFTER his plans have revealed unexpected challenges. This kind of useless finger pointing does nothing for anyone, besides remind me why I so rarely visit this Blog.
Greg, I believe arguments of logic and fact from the debates will not win or lose many voters. The zinger is what will. The pregnant prayer of both parties and candidates is to fire off a one liner that has all of the appearance of a knockout punch by Muhammed Ali, which can be transported to election ads and 15 second news sound bites to dominate the message over the airwaves and crowd out any position stands by the candidates. (e.g. Lloyd Benson’s ‘I knew Jack Kennedy, and you are no John F. Kennedy’, or words to that effect.)
Candidates don’t really want folks to know where they stand. If they take a stand, they alienate some voters and give their opponent ammunition. That want a zinger, and in typical male fashion, whichever candidate has the bigger zinger, wins the airwaves king of the hill position.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2004 08:10 PMI’ll give you that David, when it comes to elections, you are dead on. Regardless of party affiliation. This is the second time in my life we have agreed.
Posted by: Yukon Jake at September 27, 2004 08:13 PMYukon Jake,
Exactly how did 9/11 change you and your family life’s? Do you now have to get stripped search every time you go out of your house? Do you face daily bombings? Do you now go to work armed with the latest weapon to defend yourselve?
No, 9/11 should not of changed America. It should of made us more aware that we can no longer hise from the world problems. It should of made realize that our government has falling down on their duty to provide for the common defense of our nation. It should of woke up the nation to the problems faced by every Middle East country.
Yet, tell me how you changed your daily routines as a result of 9/11? Are you more serious about what goes on in America and the World now? Than welcome to reality because many people in the past have been fighting the BS thats been going on is this country for years.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 27, 2004 10:52 PMI would like to see four years of National Guard training for all citizens (good for several reasons) in order to defend our facilities, ports and containers, etc. here and here only. Any agreement out there?
Also, I have no problem paying any of our military $75-100k yr while in combat zone.
The other day in a Sen. hearing, the brass
and Rummie stated THE COSTS WERE PROHIBITIVE IN EXPLAINING TO SEN. AS WHY NOT PAYING OUR NAT. GUARD GUYS AND GALS MED. INSURANCE EVEN WHILE IN COMBAT ZONE.
Those who say 9-11 “changed everything” are using a clever ruse to avoid real debate… I’m sorry, but I fail to see how the extent of the damage brought by the Sept. 11 attacks help to support the wisdom of a failed policy in Iraq. Perhaps you will explain?
Myself, I was of the opinion that the lesson of Sept. 11 was that it would be a good idea to go after… the terrorists responsible, meaning, al Qaeda, whose leaders seem to have slipped off of Bush’s horizon.
As for the WMD issue, by the time Bush issued his State of Union address, the White House knew good and well the information on uranium sales was bogus. There’s a book on this issue: it’s called “The Politics of Truth.” I recommend it.
Posted by: Ed West at September 28, 2004 02:23 AMIt seems as though we’re meant to think that the Bush administration knew nothing about any terrorist organizations until 9/11, and that they then checked it all out and determined that we need to change every government in the Middle East into a democracy in order to protect ourselves from terrorists. We’re supposed to understand that, even if it takes generations of war, subduing the “rogue nations” in the Middle East will make us safe.
BULL. I’m going to say it out loud: This is a Holy War. Our president is a fundamentalist Christian who isn’t intent on democracy, but on beginning a war against Islam, one that will indeed take generations, but no one will ever win.
Tell me I’m wrong, tell me I’m paranoid. Bush said publicly that he believes all those who don’t follow his religion are going to hell. Now it seems he’s looking for his chance to send them there early.
Posted by: Alejo at September 29, 2004 09:48 AM
