GW Bush and the Death of Diplomacy
Larry S. Rolirad | 09.10.2005 22:47 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Indymedia | London | World
A mutant Pandora's Box filled with wars, weapons, and death has been opened by President GW Bush when he initiated preemptive attacks against other sovereign countries which posed no threats to the United States. Now Bush's Pentagon has issued a statement that nuclear weapons could be used against suspected terrorists, even if thousands or millions of innocent people will be killed by the blast or resulting fallout.
GW Bush and the Death of Diplomacy
Larry S. Rolirad
We can thank President GW Bush and the GOP for creating a world that is more unstable and dangerous than it ever has been since the end of the Cold War.
A mutant Pandora's Box filled with wars, weapons, and death has been opened by President GW Bush when he initiated preemptive attacks against other sovereign countries which posed no threats to the United States. Now Bush's Pentagon has issued a statement that nuclear weapons could be used against suspected terrorists, even if thousands or millions of innocent people will be killed by the blast or resulting fallout.
There has been a lot of verbal sabre rattling from Iran saying they want to preemptively attack Israel because Israel poses a threat to Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. And guess what "model" they are citing as an excuse to attack Israel? GW Bush's preemptive strike against Iraq model, that's what. After all, GW Bush and the GOP have established "preemptive strikes" as a way of dealing with terrorists, even if the country they attack has no terrorists.
Iran has a valid reason, according the Bush Preemptive Strike Doctrine, or "BPSD", for wanting to attack Israel. Israel has stated that they want to attack Iran's nuclear weapons capability. Since Iran would consider that to be an act of terrorism by Israel, then Iran has every right to preemptively strike Israel to defend themselves, according to the BPSD. Since Iran would be following in the same insane footsteps of GW Bush, and the GOP, how can republicans denounce Iran? They can't, and continue to justify their preemptive strike against Iraq, a country that posed a zero threat to the United States.
Since any military strike between Iraq and Israel would require that intercontinental ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear warheads, would have to pass over Turkey, or Iraqi airspace, any such action could immerse the entire Middle East in a massive war, especially if a nuclear warhead went astray and hit a large civilian target.
President Bush, and those who control his every word and move, have unopened a horrendous can of worms that will lead to very dire consequences in the future. Using the Bush/GOP preemptive solutions to terrorism opens up the door for any country to attack any other country if they feel threatened, or more importantly, if they can manufacture a reason for a preemptive attack, as the Bush Regime did against Iraq.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower said "The only way to save the world is through diplomacy". Our country has plummeted a long way since President Eisenhower made his very wise statement. Now we have a 'leader' in the White House whose level of diplomatic expertise can be summed up in three words, "Bring it on!".
We need a person in the White House with wisdom, intellect, and vision, not a person who is limited to infantile sound bites designed to provoke the illiterate masses into supporting a war that never had to be fought. With a person with the stature, experience, and wisdom of Senator John Kerry in the White House we could have been winning the peace, instead of losing the war. And we are losing the war.
Preemptive strikes against sovereign countries used to be violations of international law. But no longer. Not since the leader of the most powerful nation on earth has declared that he alone can initiate a preemptive, unilateral attack on any country he chooses.
Americans must be reminded that we are living in a new era where cultural differences are becoming increasingly important, in part in reaction to globalization. Further, they must be reminded that public diplomacy can develop international dialogues on these issues and at the very least help avoid misunderstandings and conflicts that lead to terrorism.
The average American believes that Iraq is populated with a homogeneous society. But that is not the case. There are three different factions in Iraq. The Kurds in the northern areas of Iraq represent almost 20 percent of the population. The Shiites in the southern areas of Iraq represent 60 percent of the population. And the Sunnies make up the last 20 percent of Iraq's population. In addition to the indigenous people in Iraq Islamic militants are crossing Iraq's porous borders at will. Before President Bush started his war Iraq wasn't the breeding ground for 'insurgents' as it is now. And for every Muslim killed it creates a hundred or a thousands new 'insurgents'.
By unilaterally invading a country which posed no threat to the United States President GW Bush has created the current problem in Iraq. His decision to attack, invade, and occupy Iraq is the worst foreign policy in the history of the United States because it was done purely for political and economic reasons, not for the national security of the United States. Iraq was attacked even though it posed no threat to the United States. Not one of the 9/11/01 terrorists came from Iraq. And Saddam Hussein was not tied to Osama Bin Laden in any way. The truth is Bin Laden hated Hussein because Saddam Hussein killed Muslims. Since Osama Bin Laden and almost all of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia why did Bush attack Iraq in the first place? The answer, "oil", and to funnel hundreds of billions from our treasury to republican friendly corporations, like Halliburton and Chevron in no-bid contracts.
By invading Iraq and and killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi Muslims President GW Bush has played right into the hands of Bin Laden. President Bush has become the biggest terrorist creator in the world by not having the foresight his father had regarding attacking and occupying Iraq. President George Herbert Walker Bush made the following statement in his book, 'A World Transformed', "I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad. ... To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us." President GHW Bush's son is responsible for creating the very blunderous situation his father warned about. President GW Bush has not talked about an 'exit strategy' from the mess in Iraq because our military could be in Iraq for another ten years, or longer. Why republicans continue to support President Bush defies all reason, given that the reasons for attacking and occupying Iraq were based on fabricated intelligence and outright lies. Perhaps Albert Einstein's quote about unnecessary wars can be applied to today's republicans, "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
President GHW Bush also made the following statement regarding occupying Iraq. The invasion and occupation of Iraq would result in "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq". Speaking to Gulf War veterans President GHW Bush said "whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power, America in an Arab land, with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." The first President Bush was right about the consequences of occupying Iraq. And any thinking person would have to agree with the first President Bush's assessment. Even President GHW Bush's secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, made the following statement, "Invading the country would get the United States bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq". A quagmire is an understatement. The occupation of Iraq is much worse than the Vietnam War.
In Iraq the 'enemy' wear no uniforms. In Vietnam we fought against the North Vietnamese military, or NVA, a recognizable foe. Even the Viet Cong guerrilla force, or VC, wore "informal uniforms". Everyone in Iraq could be a potential enemy. And because our military can't distinguish between the enemy and innocent Iraqis they will continue to be killed for the next ten or fifteen years, if even that soon. In June 2005, the Bush administration said that there were three battalions of Iraqis trained and ready to replace American troops. But they were wrong, or they deliberately overstated the Iraqi military capability. There is only one Iraqi battalion at "level one" readiness. The readiness of Iraqi military to replace American troops is laughable. Even though the United States has occupied Iraq for more than three years only one of Iraq's 86 army battalions is ready to fight on its own against the counterinsurgency. American generals say they cannot predict when or if U.S. forces will ever be able to withdraw from Iraq.
In addition to the problems with an insufficiently trained Iraqi armed force the police departments throughout Iraq are also woefully inadequate against the growing insurgency movement in Iraq. Iraqis who are members of any police force do not owe their primary allegiance to their functions as police, but rather to their tribes, militia groups, or religious factions.
The entire country of Iraq has become a smorgasbord for insurgents to wreak havoc. The largest group of insurgents are primarily young males who are easily recruited because they see a future as a dismal continuation of poverty and oppression. The typical insurgent has no hope for the future. And when they see innocent Iraqis, or members of their own families, being killed or mutilated they are easily recruited by insurgent leaders, such as Muqtada al-Sadr, into his Mahdi army.
The current Bush policy of killing people to achieve the peace is preposterous. Under such a policy it will be impossible to unite the many segments of the Iraqi population into a peaceful coalition. Until we can respect the values of others, who have values different than ours, we will never achieve peace in Iraq. The world cannot be viewed as a battlefield in which we use our military as solutions to problems. American policy makers must begin to realize that respecting cultural differences is paramount to achieving successful and lasting results. Instead of holding a gun with a hair-trigger at others, we need a public diplomacy which is sensitive to others, to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts that breed more and more terrorism.
The United States, under several presidents, has often failed miserably on diplomatic fronts because it propped up and supported ruthless dictators who oppressed and persecuted their people. That formula is one of disaster because the more the people are oppressed the more they feel helpless. And from their helplessness and persecution, at the hands of dictators propped up by failed US foreign policy, the more they want to strike back at those who are responsible for their plight. And because the United States has sided with ruthless dictators, like Saddam Hussein of Iraq and the Shah of Iran, the people in those countries began to hate the US and Americans for being responsible for their oppression. Since most of the US's failed foreign policy decisions were made for the benefit of American corporations, the people in the oppressed countries have even more reasons to hate the United States.
The notion that the insurgents in Iraq, or even members of Al Quaeda hate our "freedom" is preposterous. They hate the United States because of the long history of abuse by US corporations who have always sided with dictators in order to make trillions of dollars. If those corporations had any social consciousness they would have forced the leaders of oil-rich countries to share the wealth with their people. How would you feel if the United States resources were being sold out from under your feet for the benefit of only the ruling class in the country, and foreign corporations? How would you feel if you and your families were threatened and murdered by a dictator in the United States who was supported by foreign countries? If you lived a life of total poverty and loss of all hope you would begin to resent the leaders in Washington, DC and the foreign corporations who were making trillions off of the resources in the United States. I am sure, under that scenario, that you wouldn't just sit back and do nothing. You would want to strike back at those who were responsible for your oppression and the murdering of your families.
We haven't learned much in the past 75 years of siding with cold-blooded dictators, over the best interests of the people, specifically in the Middle East. American oil corporations have been acting as coconspirators with despots and dictators, against the people in their countries, all in the name of oil. In most of the Middle East countries there are only two classes of people. The first made up of a handful of the extremely wealthy class, and the other made up of people living in total poverty. And those who are mired in a lifetime of complete poverty have no hope. And when people have no hope they learn to strike back at those who are responsible for their plight. Since the US foreign policy has a long history of supporting oppressive regimes it is very understandable why those oppressed learned to hate the United States. From oppression, poverty, and lack of hope comes terrorism.
No one should be surprised at the level of resistance the United States is facing in Iraq. The resistance will not only continue, it will increase as time goes on. There will be no end to the war in Iraq because as long as huge factions of Iraqis know who is responsible for propping up people like Saddam Hussein against them they will continue to speak out and act out against the United States. These people know it was the US leaders like President Reagan and President GHW Bush who supported Saddam Hussein with money and weapons. And they know that those weapons were used to kill tens of thousands of their people.
During Ronald Reagan's presidency, Saddam Hussein was given the resources to acquire and use sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gasses against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Thousands of Kurds were murdered on March 16, 1988 and August 25, 1988, during Ronald Reagan's presidency. More than 4,000 Kurdish villages were bulldozed. More than a half million Kurds were killed from 1981 and 1991. Another half million additional Kurds suffered from lingering afflictions or died horrific deaths because of exposure to potent chemical and possibly biological weapons. But the Reagan administration did nothing to stop the slaughter. Neither did GHW Bush's administration after he was elected in 1988. Donald Rumsfeld, a special envoy of Ronald Reagan in his first presidential term, met with Saddam Hussein in 1983. Rumsfeld is pictured warmly shaking the hand of Saddam. Vice President Bush was a strong supporter of Saddam Hussein. International relations make strange bedfellows indeed.
Both President Reagan, and the first President Bush, were friends of Saddam Hussein, until Hussein invaded Kuwait. Then, even though it was well known that Saddam Hussein killed an untold number of his own people, the first President Bush failed to capture or kill Saddam during the first Gulf War. There were no protests or outcries from members of President GHW Bush's republican party to kill or capture Saddam for his abuses against his fellow man. They knew that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer. But it took twelve years after the first Gulf War for republicans to start to speak out for the oppressed Iraqis. And they only spoke out after Bush's war went sour and no weapons of mass destruction were found. When WMDs were not found republicans started to try to justify the Iraq War as a humanitarian war to free the Iraqi people from a dictator. The current Bush regime hasn't said a word about weapons of mass destruction in more than a year.
Republicans are curiously silent with regard to other totalitarian regimes on the planet. They aren't speaking out for the oppressed people in China, North Korea, or even Cuba. Using Bush's preemptive strike doctrine why aren't Bush and the GOP demanding that Fidel Castro step down, and if he doesn't, invade Cuba? After all, Cuba is only ninety miles away from our borders. Both China and North Korea have nuclear weapons. They actually pose a threat to the United States. So why isn't President GW Bush unilaterally declaring war against them? Oh well, consistency is not a trait you would find in a typical republican 'leader'.
We are at a juncture where there is a great number of people in the United States who are for preemptive attacks to achieve a desired resolution to a problem, and a great number of people who embrace diplomacy as an alternate to war. Last year's presidential election was a contest between these two forces. It was unfortunate that a majority of the people decided to choose war to solve problems for a short term perceived gain, and voted for the reelection of President Bush. It is unfortunate that the majority of Americans didn't desire complex diplomatic solutions to problems for long term gains, and voted for Senator John Kerry. Last year's presidential election was decided by people deluded by propaganda and fear. People who believed the propaganda that Iraq was a threat to the United States voted for the status quo, and cast their ballots for Bush. Remember, any fool can go to war, but it takes someone with intelligence, wisdom and restraint to keep the peace. Unfortunately, President Bush has none of those qualities.
The Iraq War has nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorists. Our military is only in Iraq to defend the financial interests of republican friendly corporations, who are making tens of billions off of the war. If President Bush was concerned with the safety of Americans he would withdraw our troops from Iraq and put them on our southern border with Mexico. The United States is being 'invaded' by 6,000 illegal aliens a day. Since Bush was sworn into office in 2001 almost ten million aliens have crossed our border. Since it only took 19 terrorists to cause all of the damage and the loss of lives on 9/11/01 it can be safely said that at least that many terrorists have entered our country among the other ten million illegal aliens. President Bush is allowing our country to be invaded because he does not want to lose the Hispanic vote. President Bush has violated his oath of office to preserve and protect American citizens by putting the political futures of republican officeholders above that of the safety of every American.
We need to keep lines of communication open between countries. That is the key to being able to achieve diplomatic solutions, rather than wars. Americans need to be convinced that we are living in a new era of globalization where understanding cultural differences is crucial to successful resolutions. If we do not constantly work for peace, we will always become mired in war.
Copyright 2005, Larry S. Rolirad, All Rights Reserved
Larry S. Rolirad
We can thank President GW Bush and the GOP for creating a world that is more unstable and dangerous than it ever has been since the end of the Cold War.
A mutant Pandora's Box filled with wars, weapons, and death has been opened by President GW Bush when he initiated preemptive attacks against other sovereign countries which posed no threats to the United States. Now Bush's Pentagon has issued a statement that nuclear weapons could be used against suspected terrorists, even if thousands or millions of innocent people will be killed by the blast or resulting fallout.
There has been a lot of verbal sabre rattling from Iran saying they want to preemptively attack Israel because Israel poses a threat to Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. And guess what "model" they are citing as an excuse to attack Israel? GW Bush's preemptive strike against Iraq model, that's what. After all, GW Bush and the GOP have established "preemptive strikes" as a way of dealing with terrorists, even if the country they attack has no terrorists.
Iran has a valid reason, according the Bush Preemptive Strike Doctrine, or "BPSD", for wanting to attack Israel. Israel has stated that they want to attack Iran's nuclear weapons capability. Since Iran would consider that to be an act of terrorism by Israel, then Iran has every right to preemptively strike Israel to defend themselves, according to the BPSD. Since Iran would be following in the same insane footsteps of GW Bush, and the GOP, how can republicans denounce Iran? They can't, and continue to justify their preemptive strike against Iraq, a country that posed a zero threat to the United States.
Since any military strike between Iraq and Israel would require that intercontinental ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear warheads, would have to pass over Turkey, or Iraqi airspace, any such action could immerse the entire Middle East in a massive war, especially if a nuclear warhead went astray and hit a large civilian target.
President Bush, and those who control his every word and move, have unopened a horrendous can of worms that will lead to very dire consequences in the future. Using the Bush/GOP preemptive solutions to terrorism opens up the door for any country to attack any other country if they feel threatened, or more importantly, if they can manufacture a reason for a preemptive attack, as the Bush Regime did against Iraq.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower said "The only way to save the world is through diplomacy". Our country has plummeted a long way since President Eisenhower made his very wise statement. Now we have a 'leader' in the White House whose level of diplomatic expertise can be summed up in three words, "Bring it on!".
We need a person in the White House with wisdom, intellect, and vision, not a person who is limited to infantile sound bites designed to provoke the illiterate masses into supporting a war that never had to be fought. With a person with the stature, experience, and wisdom of Senator John Kerry in the White House we could have been winning the peace, instead of losing the war. And we are losing the war.
Preemptive strikes against sovereign countries used to be violations of international law. But no longer. Not since the leader of the most powerful nation on earth has declared that he alone can initiate a preemptive, unilateral attack on any country he chooses.
Americans must be reminded that we are living in a new era where cultural differences are becoming increasingly important, in part in reaction to globalization. Further, they must be reminded that public diplomacy can develop international dialogues on these issues and at the very least help avoid misunderstandings and conflicts that lead to terrorism.
The average American believes that Iraq is populated with a homogeneous society. But that is not the case. There are three different factions in Iraq. The Kurds in the northern areas of Iraq represent almost 20 percent of the population. The Shiites in the southern areas of Iraq represent 60 percent of the population. And the Sunnies make up the last 20 percent of Iraq's population. In addition to the indigenous people in Iraq Islamic militants are crossing Iraq's porous borders at will. Before President Bush started his war Iraq wasn't the breeding ground for 'insurgents' as it is now. And for every Muslim killed it creates a hundred or a thousands new 'insurgents'.
By unilaterally invading a country which posed no threat to the United States President GW Bush has created the current problem in Iraq. His decision to attack, invade, and occupy Iraq is the worst foreign policy in the history of the United States because it was done purely for political and economic reasons, not for the national security of the United States. Iraq was attacked even though it posed no threat to the United States. Not one of the 9/11/01 terrorists came from Iraq. And Saddam Hussein was not tied to Osama Bin Laden in any way. The truth is Bin Laden hated Hussein because Saddam Hussein killed Muslims. Since Osama Bin Laden and almost all of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia why did Bush attack Iraq in the first place? The answer, "oil", and to funnel hundreds of billions from our treasury to republican friendly corporations, like Halliburton and Chevron in no-bid contracts.
By invading Iraq and and killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi Muslims President GW Bush has played right into the hands of Bin Laden. President Bush has become the biggest terrorist creator in the world by not having the foresight his father had regarding attacking and occupying Iraq. President George Herbert Walker Bush made the following statement in his book, 'A World Transformed', "I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad. ... To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us." President GHW Bush's son is responsible for creating the very blunderous situation his father warned about. President GW Bush has not talked about an 'exit strategy' from the mess in Iraq because our military could be in Iraq for another ten years, or longer. Why republicans continue to support President Bush defies all reason, given that the reasons for attacking and occupying Iraq were based on fabricated intelligence and outright lies. Perhaps Albert Einstein's quote about unnecessary wars can be applied to today's republicans, "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
President GHW Bush also made the following statement regarding occupying Iraq. The invasion and occupation of Iraq would result in "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq". Speaking to Gulf War veterans President GHW Bush said "whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power, America in an Arab land, with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." The first President Bush was right about the consequences of occupying Iraq. And any thinking person would have to agree with the first President Bush's assessment. Even President GHW Bush's secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, made the following statement, "Invading the country would get the United States bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq". A quagmire is an understatement. The occupation of Iraq is much worse than the Vietnam War.
In Iraq the 'enemy' wear no uniforms. In Vietnam we fought against the North Vietnamese military, or NVA, a recognizable foe. Even the Viet Cong guerrilla force, or VC, wore "informal uniforms". Everyone in Iraq could be a potential enemy. And because our military can't distinguish between the enemy and innocent Iraqis they will continue to be killed for the next ten or fifteen years, if even that soon. In June 2005, the Bush administration said that there were three battalions of Iraqis trained and ready to replace American troops. But they were wrong, or they deliberately overstated the Iraqi military capability. There is only one Iraqi battalion at "level one" readiness. The readiness of Iraqi military to replace American troops is laughable. Even though the United States has occupied Iraq for more than three years only one of Iraq's 86 army battalions is ready to fight on its own against the counterinsurgency. American generals say they cannot predict when or if U.S. forces will ever be able to withdraw from Iraq.
In addition to the problems with an insufficiently trained Iraqi armed force the police departments throughout Iraq are also woefully inadequate against the growing insurgency movement in Iraq. Iraqis who are members of any police force do not owe their primary allegiance to their functions as police, but rather to their tribes, militia groups, or religious factions.
The entire country of Iraq has become a smorgasbord for insurgents to wreak havoc. The largest group of insurgents are primarily young males who are easily recruited because they see a future as a dismal continuation of poverty and oppression. The typical insurgent has no hope for the future. And when they see innocent Iraqis, or members of their own families, being killed or mutilated they are easily recruited by insurgent leaders, such as Muqtada al-Sadr, into his Mahdi army.
The current Bush policy of killing people to achieve the peace is preposterous. Under such a policy it will be impossible to unite the many segments of the Iraqi population into a peaceful coalition. Until we can respect the values of others, who have values different than ours, we will never achieve peace in Iraq. The world cannot be viewed as a battlefield in which we use our military as solutions to problems. American policy makers must begin to realize that respecting cultural differences is paramount to achieving successful and lasting results. Instead of holding a gun with a hair-trigger at others, we need a public diplomacy which is sensitive to others, to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts that breed more and more terrorism.
The United States, under several presidents, has often failed miserably on diplomatic fronts because it propped up and supported ruthless dictators who oppressed and persecuted their people. That formula is one of disaster because the more the people are oppressed the more they feel helpless. And from their helplessness and persecution, at the hands of dictators propped up by failed US foreign policy, the more they want to strike back at those who are responsible for their plight. And because the United States has sided with ruthless dictators, like Saddam Hussein of Iraq and the Shah of Iran, the people in those countries began to hate the US and Americans for being responsible for their oppression. Since most of the US's failed foreign policy decisions were made for the benefit of American corporations, the people in the oppressed countries have even more reasons to hate the United States.
The notion that the insurgents in Iraq, or even members of Al Quaeda hate our "freedom" is preposterous. They hate the United States because of the long history of abuse by US corporations who have always sided with dictators in order to make trillions of dollars. If those corporations had any social consciousness they would have forced the leaders of oil-rich countries to share the wealth with their people. How would you feel if the United States resources were being sold out from under your feet for the benefit of only the ruling class in the country, and foreign corporations? How would you feel if you and your families were threatened and murdered by a dictator in the United States who was supported by foreign countries? If you lived a life of total poverty and loss of all hope you would begin to resent the leaders in Washington, DC and the foreign corporations who were making trillions off of the resources in the United States. I am sure, under that scenario, that you wouldn't just sit back and do nothing. You would want to strike back at those who were responsible for your oppression and the murdering of your families.
We haven't learned much in the past 75 years of siding with cold-blooded dictators, over the best interests of the people, specifically in the Middle East. American oil corporations have been acting as coconspirators with despots and dictators, against the people in their countries, all in the name of oil. In most of the Middle East countries there are only two classes of people. The first made up of a handful of the extremely wealthy class, and the other made up of people living in total poverty. And those who are mired in a lifetime of complete poverty have no hope. And when people have no hope they learn to strike back at those who are responsible for their plight. Since the US foreign policy has a long history of supporting oppressive regimes it is very understandable why those oppressed learned to hate the United States. From oppression, poverty, and lack of hope comes terrorism.
No one should be surprised at the level of resistance the United States is facing in Iraq. The resistance will not only continue, it will increase as time goes on. There will be no end to the war in Iraq because as long as huge factions of Iraqis know who is responsible for propping up people like Saddam Hussein against them they will continue to speak out and act out against the United States. These people know it was the US leaders like President Reagan and President GHW Bush who supported Saddam Hussein with money and weapons. And they know that those weapons were used to kill tens of thousands of their people.
During Ronald Reagan's presidency, Saddam Hussein was given the resources to acquire and use sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gasses against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Thousands of Kurds were murdered on March 16, 1988 and August 25, 1988, during Ronald Reagan's presidency. More than 4,000 Kurdish villages were bulldozed. More than a half million Kurds were killed from 1981 and 1991. Another half million additional Kurds suffered from lingering afflictions or died horrific deaths because of exposure to potent chemical and possibly biological weapons. But the Reagan administration did nothing to stop the slaughter. Neither did GHW Bush's administration after he was elected in 1988. Donald Rumsfeld, a special envoy of Ronald Reagan in his first presidential term, met with Saddam Hussein in 1983. Rumsfeld is pictured warmly shaking the hand of Saddam. Vice President Bush was a strong supporter of Saddam Hussein. International relations make strange bedfellows indeed.
Both President Reagan, and the first President Bush, were friends of Saddam Hussein, until Hussein invaded Kuwait. Then, even though it was well known that Saddam Hussein killed an untold number of his own people, the first President Bush failed to capture or kill Saddam during the first Gulf War. There were no protests or outcries from members of President GHW Bush's republican party to kill or capture Saddam for his abuses against his fellow man. They knew that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer. But it took twelve years after the first Gulf War for republicans to start to speak out for the oppressed Iraqis. And they only spoke out after Bush's war went sour and no weapons of mass destruction were found. When WMDs were not found republicans started to try to justify the Iraq War as a humanitarian war to free the Iraqi people from a dictator. The current Bush regime hasn't said a word about weapons of mass destruction in more than a year.
Republicans are curiously silent with regard to other totalitarian regimes on the planet. They aren't speaking out for the oppressed people in China, North Korea, or even Cuba. Using Bush's preemptive strike doctrine why aren't Bush and the GOP demanding that Fidel Castro step down, and if he doesn't, invade Cuba? After all, Cuba is only ninety miles away from our borders. Both China and North Korea have nuclear weapons. They actually pose a threat to the United States. So why isn't President GW Bush unilaterally declaring war against them? Oh well, consistency is not a trait you would find in a typical republican 'leader'.
We are at a juncture where there is a great number of people in the United States who are for preemptive attacks to achieve a desired resolution to a problem, and a great number of people who embrace diplomacy as an alternate to war. Last year's presidential election was a contest between these two forces. It was unfortunate that a majority of the people decided to choose war to solve problems for a short term perceived gain, and voted for the reelection of President Bush. It is unfortunate that the majority of Americans didn't desire complex diplomatic solutions to problems for long term gains, and voted for Senator John Kerry. Last year's presidential election was decided by people deluded by propaganda and fear. People who believed the propaganda that Iraq was a threat to the United States voted for the status quo, and cast their ballots for Bush. Remember, any fool can go to war, but it takes someone with intelligence, wisdom and restraint to keep the peace. Unfortunately, President Bush has none of those qualities.
The Iraq War has nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorists. Our military is only in Iraq to defend the financial interests of republican friendly corporations, who are making tens of billions off of the war. If President Bush was concerned with the safety of Americans he would withdraw our troops from Iraq and put them on our southern border with Mexico. The United States is being 'invaded' by 6,000 illegal aliens a day. Since Bush was sworn into office in 2001 almost ten million aliens have crossed our border. Since it only took 19 terrorists to cause all of the damage and the loss of lives on 9/11/01 it can be safely said that at least that many terrorists have entered our country among the other ten million illegal aliens. President Bush is allowing our country to be invaded because he does not want to lose the Hispanic vote. President Bush has violated his oath of office to preserve and protect American citizens by putting the political futures of republican officeholders above that of the safety of every American.
We need to keep lines of communication open between countries. That is the key to being able to achieve diplomatic solutions, rather than wars. Americans need to be convinced that we are living in a new era of globalization where understanding cultural differences is crucial to successful resolutions. If we do not constantly work for peace, we will always become mired in war.
Copyright 2005, Larry S. Rolirad, All Rights Reserved
Larry S. Rolirad
e-mail:
amzingone@aol.com